Should attendance be mandatory for university lectures?
Scroll to see replies
I know all courses are different and all that, but surely it will be worth your while going to lectures. Especially as you have the £9000 a year tuition fees.
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
Why do people keep making this "waste of money" argument? There's no way most lecturers can make it worth the price. Even the best ones can't do as good a job as a good tutor for the most part, lectures are just a bad teaching method which persist because they are efficient and cost-effective. Even if you attend every lecture, the degree is overpriced, and ultimately I think you're mainly paying for the degree itself. It's only truly a waste if you get a poor grade, and not every degree requires lecture attendance to avoid this.
It's the case of getting the most out of a rip off.
Original post by Wired_1800
Lecture notes are supposed to be for pre-reading with discussion and more knowledge shared by the Professor during his time in class.
Have you tried having a discussion with 500 people sitting in the room?
What you describe is more what seminars are about, imo. Which almost all unis offer alongside their lecture courses. Unless you're in america anyway.
Original post by Summer15
As has been mentioned - they are mandatory for health professions.
No not always - depends on the course and uni.
Original post by nexttime
Have you tried having a discussion with 500 people sitting in the room?
What you describe is more what seminars are about, imo. Which almost all unis offer alongside their lecture courses. Unless you're in america anyway.
No not always - depends on the course and uni.
What you describe is more what seminars are about, imo. Which almost all unis offer alongside their lecture courses. Unless you're in america anyway.
No not always - depends on the course and uni.
First of all, 500-odd theatres are used to deliver lectures for general courses such as Engineering Maths level 1 for Engineering first years or popular courses such as Computer Science for Non-computer scientists.
However, i doubt that every theatre in every university is packed with hundreds of students with a hapless lecturer.
The issue is that universities cheat students by denying them proper tuition through packing them like rats into halls where half cannot hear or follow the lecture.
There should be adequate controls that ensure lectures are broken to manageable numbers by having multiple classes.
The current format that we have is Professors come to recite their slides to you in 2 - 3 hours. Then you have a supervision or tutorial with mostly a PhD student in a smaller number. But you paid to be taught by the Professor.
(edited 6 years ago)
UK. I heard that it is worse in the US.
Some Professors and Universities upload the slides to an academic webportal. I am not a big fan because i think students should attend their lectures.
Some Professors and Universities upload the slides to an academic webportal. I am not a big fan because i think students should attend their lectures.
Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
You can watch the lectures online. The university experience is not merely the lectures.
You pay the 9 grand for the opportunity to sit the exams and have those exams accredited. If they want to waste their own time by talking to a bunch of people who are watching Match of the Day on their laptops and not paying attention, then that's on them. It is a fallacy, however, to think there is value to the lectures and being there. People always say "but you cannot ask questions if you're not there". My lectures had 300-400 people in them. No one was asking questions anyway.
You pay the 9 grand for the opportunity to sit the exams and have those exams accredited. If they want to waste their own time by talking to a bunch of people who are watching Match of the Day on their laptops and not paying attention, then that's on them. It is a fallacy, however, to think there is value to the lectures and being there. People always say "but you cannot ask questions if you're not there". My lectures had 300-400 people in them. No one was asking questions anyway.
Hmm, maybe it's just me, I don't know. I get where you're coming from, but I don't personally see the point of going to university if you're not actually GOING to university, if you catch my drift. To me, the university experience includes lectures too - lectures are what I think of when I think of the academic side of university. So maybe I'm not against mandatory attendance for lectures, rather the fact that they're put online. If I'm watching a lecture online at home, there's no way that lecture has my undivided attention. At least if I'm in the lecture theatre there's an outside chance I'll be forced to pay attention
Original post by Wired_1800
First of all, 500-odd theatres are used to deliver lectures for general courses such as Engineering Maths level 1 for Engineering first years or popular courses such as Computer Science for Non-computer scientists.
However, i doubt that every theatre in every university is packed with hundreds of students with a hapless lecturer.
The issue is that universities cheat students by denying them proper tuition through packing them like rats into halls where half cannot hear or follow the lecture.
There should be adequate controls that ensure lectures are broken to manageable numbers by having multiple classes.
The current format that we have is Professors come to recite their slides to you in 2 - 3 hours. Then you have a supervision or tutorial with mostly a PhD student in a smaller number. But you paid to be taught by the Professor.
However, i doubt that every theatre in every university is packed with hundreds of students with a hapless lecturer.
The issue is that universities cheat students by denying them proper tuition through packing them like rats into halls where half cannot hear or follow the lecture.
There should be adequate controls that ensure lectures are broken to manageable numbers by having multiple classes.
The current format that we have is Professors come to recite their slides to you in 2 - 3 hours. Then you have a supervision or tutorial with mostly a PhD student in a smaller number. But you paid to be taught by the Professor.
I only had one PhD lead a tutorial and that was only to cover someone else. In all honesty, the PhD is a lot closer to undergraduate study than a professor, and often they can teach a subject in a more undergrad-friendly way than a professor can.
For law, the majority of courses you study are generalist topics that every has to take. 500 seater is the most common, and it usually is a hapless lecturer. With watching online, you can pause when you want to or rewind if you weren't sure what exactly was said. It's a most useful tool.
Original post by Cari98
Hmm, maybe it's just me, I don't know. I get where you're coming from, but I don't personally see the point of going to university if you're not actually GOING to university, if you catch my drift. To me, the university experience includes lectures too - lectures are what I think of when I think of the academic side of university. So maybe I'm not against mandatory attendance for lectures, rather the fact that they're put online. If I'm watching a lecture online at home, there's no way that lecture has my undivided attention. At least if I'm in the lecture theatre there's an outside chance I'll be forced to pay attention
I didn't pay attention in the lectures. There is no connection with the lecturer as there is with your teacher at school. There is little to no interaction. And the laziness of the other students, who are messing about on FB, sets a bad example.
Original post by nexttime
No not always - depends on the course and uni.
No not always - depends on the course and uni.
Ah right, wasn't aware. It is at my university for all health profession degree courses and for my friends on Nursing/Medicine courses at other universities. Actually it's a bit concerning that it's not the case across the board. I wouldn't want someone treating me who skipped class to be honest.
Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
I only had one PhD lead a tutorial and that was only to cover someone else. In all honesty, the PhD is a lot closer to undergraduate study than a professor, and often they can teach a subject in a more undergrad-friendly way than a professor can.
For law, the majority of courses you study are generalist topics that every has to take. 500 seater is the most common, and it usually is a hapless lecturer. With watching online, you can pause when you want to or rewind if you weren't sure what exactly was said. It's a most useful tool.
For law, the majority of courses you study are generalist topics that every has to take. 500 seater is the most common, and it usually is a hapless lecturer. With watching online, you can pause when you want to or rewind if you weren't sure what exactly was said. It's a most useful tool.
That is true, but the university has to acknowledge that many courses in Law will be generalist and thus arrange for multiple classes to manage the numbers.
I agree that a PhD may be able to teach the subject in a more undergrad friendly way but the knowledge may be precious coming from a season Professor.
Original post by Summer15
Ah right, wasn't aware. It is at my university for all health profession degree courses and for my friends on Nursing/Medicine courses at other universities. Actually it's a bit concerning that it's not the case across the board. I wouldn't want someone treating me who skipped class to be honest.
Disagree - standards should be maintained through thorough assessment, not by how many hours you happen to have turned up. How the student studied for their assessment is irrelevant as long as they passed it. 'Oh, you passed the exam with flying colours, but you fell asleep during that one bit of my lecture so you still fail' - eugh.
There are some exceptions in a vocational course - like just knowing how wards work is got by spending time there not in an exam, etc - but making all lectures compulsory would be patronising at best, actively bad for student learning at worst, and i would be strongly against that.
(edited 6 years ago)
Depends.
My highest second semester module mark was from a course in which I didn't attend a single lecture. However I watched all the podcasts...
I would only attend a lecture if it is not podcasted otherwise it's a waste of time, for me at least.
The only reason I would go to a lecture is if it is not available on podcast because sometimes they drop hints such as "pay extra attention here" which usually means something similar will be on the exam.
I found lectures really are pointless most of the time and just go over the slides/basics of the material. Which you can just do yourself at home without the hassle of going in to a lecture.
My highest second semester module mark was from a course in which I didn't attend a single lecture. However I watched all the podcasts...
I would only attend a lecture if it is not podcasted otherwise it's a waste of time, for me at least.
The only reason I would go to a lecture is if it is not available on podcast because sometimes they drop hints such as "pay extra attention here" which usually means something similar will be on the exam.
I found lectures really are pointless most of the time and just go over the slides/basics of the material. Which you can just do yourself at home without the hassle of going in to a lecture.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by khanpatel321
Depends.
My highest second semester module mark was from a course in which I didn't attend a single lecture. However I watched all the podcasts...
I would only attend a lecture if it is not podcasted otherwise it's a waste of time, for me at least.
The only reason I would go to a lecture is if it is not available on podcast because sometimes they drop hints such as "pay extra attention here" which usually means something similar will be on the exam.
I found lectures really are pointless most of the time and just go over the slides/basics of the material. Which you can just do yourself at home without the hassle of going in to a lecture.
My highest second semester module mark was from a course in which I didn't attend a single lecture. However I watched all the podcasts...
I would only attend a lecture if it is not podcasted otherwise it's a waste of time, for me at least.
The only reason I would go to a lecture is if it is not available on podcast because sometimes they drop hints such as "pay extra attention here" which usually means something similar will be on the exam.
I found lectures really are pointless most of the time and just go over the slides/basics of the material. Which you can just do yourself at home without the hassle of going in to a lecture.
That is fair, but it has been said that the current format is for students to pass exams. So if you are being taught abysmally but you are passing the exams, which are often repeated every year or 2 years, then you won't complain.
Lectures, to me, are for knowledge transfer through discussions. My brother studied at a prestigious university (name withheld), where the Professors would send the lecture slides a week in advance for the students to go through for the next class.
During the next class, the time was used for discussion and improving their knowledge on the topic. The students would then be given assignments to do, which were discussed in smaller seminars.
My brother hated the approach in his first year because he always had work to do, whether it was reading up on the new lecture material or completing the assignments. By his second year, he was happy with it and could not have imagined something different.
When I speak with him, I see why his uni was indeed prestigious, where students progressed to top jobs in the City or other reputable firms.
For other universities, the format seem to be where lecturers recite their material to students, advise you to do past questions and then repeat these questions during the exam. Students will then think they learned something, when they were just part of the rote learning cycle based on repetition.
Original post by Llamageddon
youd have probably been better off doing lses online course. Textbooks, past papers, reading lists and no lectures to go to.
Agreed. Funnily enough, if the rest of the course was as difficult as the maths proofs module, I probably would've been motivated enough to get a 1st.
Looking back on uni, I preferred the "You don't understand what I said? Tough, find it out later" and having to construct notes myself based on the material given, to the "I'm going to make it easy for you" and being lulled into a false sense of security.
Not sure if it's just me, though.
Original post by nexttime
Disagree - standards should be maintained through thorough assessment, not by how many hours you happen to have turned up. How the student studied for their assessment is irrelevant as long as they passed it. 'Oh, you passed the exam with flying colours, but you fell asleep during that one bit of my lecture so you still fail' - eugh.
There are some exceptions in a vocational course - like just knowing how wards work is got by spending time there not in an exam, etc - but making all lectures compulsory would be patronising at best, actively bad for student learning at worst, and i would be strongly against that.
There are some exceptions in a vocational course - like just knowing how wards work is got by spending time there not in an exam, etc - but making all lectures compulsory would be patronising at best, actively bad for student learning at worst, and i would be strongly against that.
I actually agree with that reasoning in terms of academics and non-NHS funded courses but I disagree in terms of NHS degrees and professional behaviors. NHS courses assess more than just academics - tutors want to know that their graduates have excellent professional qualities and part of assessing that is through assessment of professionalism which includes attendance/punctuality.
I get a bad feeling about allowing people on NHS courses to continue on those courses if they skip classes/make excuses as to why they skip classes - not for the reason that they may lack knowledge, but because that's not the type of person who demonstrates professional behavior and who I would not want treating my family.
Yes, they may have great medical knowledge, but are they a decent person, are they honest, can they follow protocols/instruction/rules, do they have discipline, respect, morals etc?
If someone is told ''this is compulsory''/''this is required of you'' etc and they actively avoid it and subsequently have to lie about why they didn't show up then, personally, that is a red flag for a health professional and unis know this - they will kick people off my course for doing this, and rightly so.
So I don't think it's acceptable for students on NHS courses to be able to skip class and qualify if those classes are mandatory, because they are displaying unacceptable behaviors which wouldn't be tolerated in their profession. You don't get to choose which work hours you skip when you qualify, and NHS courses are training you to act like a professional from the very start. Plus they are NHS funded - those teaching hours are being paid for by the NHS and if a student skips them it's not their own money that they are wasting, like on many other degrees where the student takes out a tuition loan - it's NHS money.
The other thing is that students are required to attend a certain amount of face-to-face classes in order to be classed as full time students (at least on my course, that's the case) - so from the the university's point of view, it matters that they have set teaching hours (which are attended by the student) for particular courses and if they didn't it would throw things such as funding and the NHS bursary into chaos.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Summer15
NHS courses assess more than just academics - tutors want to know that their graduates have excellent professional qualities and part of assessing that is through assessment of professionalism which includes attendance/punctuality.
So mandatory daily lectures is in order to... let the students practice being on time?!
So I don't think it's acceptable for students on NHS courses to be able to skip class and qualify if those classes are mandatory, because they are displaying unacceptable behaviors which wouldn't be tolerated in their profession. You don't get to choose which work hours you skip when you qualify, and NHS courses are training you to act like a professional from the very start. Plus they are NHS funded - those teaching hours are being paid for by the NHS and if a student skips them it's not their own money that they are wasting, like on many other degrees where the student takes out a tuition loan - it's NHS money.
Well yes, obviously if it's compulsory they must attend. But the question here is whether lectures should be compulsory in the first place! Is it unprofessional to not attend a non-compulsory lecture? I assume not.
Lectures are for learning, not practicing attendance, therefore assessment should be based on that learning.
As mentioned - ward time is different, as are small group teachings.
The other thing is that students are required to attend a certain amount of face-to-face classes in order to be classed as full time students (at least on my course, that's the case) - so from the the university's point of view, it matters that they have set teaching hours (which are attended by the student) for particular courses and if they didn't it would throw things such as funding and the NHS bursary into chaos.
Again - the question is more why that requirement exists, not pointing out it does therefore students simply comply. That requirement needn't exist!
I think in an ideal world, lectures would deliver value for money actually be useful in providing a learning experience that you couldn't get yourself just by reading notes/textbooks at home, and hence you were vastly more likely to do well in your degree if you attended them than if you didn't. Following that, it wouldn't make much difference if lectures were mandatory or not - nobody would want to miss them.
Currently, it seems that the only reason lectures (or a certain percentage of them) are mandatory is because if they weren't, it would quite clearly expose how useless some of them can be, leading to valid questions around what the university is actually charging £9k per year for.
I used to have 12 hours of lectures per week, and 20 weeks of lectures per year (studying Maths at UCL). This suggests that each student is paying around £38.50 per hour of lectures, which is frankly ridiculous, considering that most lectures consisted of nothing other than the lecturer reading from a script, and that you could probably get proper, personalised, one-on-one private tuition for about that much.
I don't understand why university qualifications can't be the same as GCSE and A-Level qualifications - where the exams are set by an independent examining board, and the job of the university is to do their best to educate you so that you can do well on them. If you can do well on those exams without attending lectures or indeed without attending university at all, good for you - you didn't need their help.
Currently, it seems that the only reason lectures (or a certain percentage of them) are mandatory is because if they weren't, it would quite clearly expose how useless some of them can be, leading to valid questions around what the university is actually charging £9k per year for.
I used to have 12 hours of lectures per week, and 20 weeks of lectures per year (studying Maths at UCL). This suggests that each student is paying around £38.50 per hour of lectures, which is frankly ridiculous, considering that most lectures consisted of nothing other than the lecturer reading from a script, and that you could probably get proper, personalised, one-on-one private tuition for about that much.
I don't understand why university qualifications can't be the same as GCSE and A-Level qualifications - where the exams are set by an independent examining board, and the job of the university is to do their best to educate you so that you can do well on them. If you can do well on those exams without attending lectures or indeed without attending university at all, good for you - you didn't need their help.
(edited 6 years ago)
Does it matter? Only a fool would not attend lectures; they are wasting their own money at the end of the day.
Original post by tazarooni89
I think in an ideal world, lectures would deliver value for money actually be useful in providing a learning experience that you couldn't get yourself just by reading notes/textbooks at home, and hence you were vastly more likely to do well in your degree if you attended them than if you didn't. Following that, it wouldn't make much difference if lectures were mandatory or not - nobody would want to miss them.
Currently, it seems that the only reason lectures (or a certain percentage of them) are mandatory is because if they weren't, it would quite clearly expose how useless some of them can be, leading to valid questions around what the university is actually charging £9k per year for.
Currently, it seems that the only reason lectures (or a certain percentage of them) are mandatory is because if they weren't, it would quite clearly expose how useless some of them can be, leading to valid questions around what the university is actually charging £9k per year for.
Strongly agree!
I used to have 12 hours of lectures per week, and 20 weeks of lectures per year (studying Maths at UCL). This suggests that each student is paying around £38.50 per hour of lectures, which is frankly ridiculous, considering that most lectures consisted of nothing other than the lecturer reading from a script, and that you could probably get proper, personalised, one-on-one private tuition for about that much.
Wait you had no other teaching at all?
That does sound pretty bad...I don't understand why university qualifications can't be the same as GCSE and A-Level qualifications - where the exams are set by an independent examining board, and the job of the university is to do their best to educate you so that you can do well on them. If you can do well on those exams without attending lectures or indeed without attending university at all, good for you - you didn't need their help.
Can't really agree with this though. The idea is that unis should be teaching what they specialise in. If they have a world leader in... elliptical equations (ok i knokw no maths)... then their syllabus and lectures should emphasise that more than another uni. It would greatly restrict freedoms and at the top level (by which i mean top unis but also top researchers in a particular field) greatly reduce the scope of what they teach.
Even medicine doesn't yet have a national exam, and that's a vocational course where you'd have thought it'd be pretty easy to standardise! Though oneis being introduced in 2021 (after years of debate).
(edited 6 years ago)
Personally I think they should only be mandatory if you're actually getting something out of them. In my university, lectures are mandatory but lecturers wouldn't take registers (there is a TAP IN system where you swipe your ID card on a reader to mark your attendance).
From my experiences of doing lectures so far, I do get something out of them sometimes but it depends on the teaching style and the content. I do an art related course and in my first year, I had CTS (Contextual/Theoretical Studies) lectures which mostly consisted of the lecturer explaining topics from PowerPoint presentations + occasional workshops. I would mostly try to attend those lectures as majority of the topics mentioned were not present on the PowerPoint (which was confusing to go through in my own time). So far in my second year, I have Professional Practices lectures; I've attended most of them but I've missed two (these lectures are usually lecture captured anyway so I can catch up in my own time). Usually with lectures, I only take notes when there are pieces of info that hasn't been mentioned on the PowerPoint presentations; I just feel like it's pointless to copy everything word for word.
With most lectures/seminars in my university, there are some students on my course who end up missing way more than me; sometimes the lecturers don't notice but it depends on how often students don't attend.
From my experiences of doing lectures so far, I do get something out of them sometimes but it depends on the teaching style and the content. I do an art related course and in my first year, I had CTS (Contextual/Theoretical Studies) lectures which mostly consisted of the lecturer explaining topics from PowerPoint presentations + occasional workshops. I would mostly try to attend those lectures as majority of the topics mentioned were not present on the PowerPoint (which was confusing to go through in my own time). So far in my second year, I have Professional Practices lectures; I've attended most of them but I've missed two (these lectures are usually lecture captured anyway so I can catch up in my own time). Usually with lectures, I only take notes when there are pieces of info that hasn't been mentioned on the PowerPoint presentations; I just feel like it's pointless to copy everything word for word.
With most lectures/seminars in my university, there are some students on my course who end up missing way more than me; sometimes the lecturers don't notice but it depends on how often students don't attend.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Lectures at Cambridge
- Induction for University of Brighton
- Can you get kicked out of uni for low attendance?
- City University- Lecture Attendance for Computer Science
- Failed the resit
- uni tips and what to know please
- How often are you at uni on an art BA ?
- What is freshers week?
- what do you do in freshers week?
- University of Reading Pharmacy Foundation 2023
- Classes Overlapping
- How much should I study?
- Lectures
- What is studying in Edinburgh like?
- Studying at Lund University
- Uni Exeter international students attendance warning
- Open Day
- English at St Andrews
- KU Welcome Week: Campus Tours, Course Inductions and More!
- Philosophy at Oxford PPL
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
