Online MSc Computer Science with Data Analytics at University of York

> the course will unlikely be accredited by an external body, but a lot of degrees are not either

It's standard for STEM degrees - all courses at my UG school are accredited by the IET. York's on-campus CS degrees are too. Not being accredited is a big red flag.

> Though why you think it's not valid to get a more senior colleague to check it seems odd.

Not sure where you think I said that.

Reply 1442

Original post by YorkMScCS

> the course will unlikely be accredited by an external body, but a lot of degrees are not either

It's standard for STEM degrees - all courses at my UG school are accredited by the IET. York's on-campus CS degrees are too. Not being accredited is a big red flag.

> Though why you think it's not valid to get a more senior colleague to check it seems odd.

Not sure where you think I said that.

>Not sure where you think I said that.
I wrote "The same way someone checks your work at your job and makes sure it's not a turd!" But you didn't think I was being serious. Either that, or you really thought that I suggesting someone literally checks your work for turds because the toilet is too far away for you.

>It's standard for STEM degrees - all courses at my UG school are accredited by the IET. York's on-campus CS degrees are too. Not being accredited is a big red flag.
Only if the job you are applying for requires it. It's the same for most things. I guess some employers can be cheeky and not state they want someone with a masters just to see who applies and then only interview those with a masters (or whatever they are looking for). There are people who work at my company that don't have accreditation or any qualifications, yet work on software development https://www.quora.com/Will-my-salary-increase-every-year-as-a-software-engineer So I think it comes down what I've written many times before, people need to be sure about their objectives for doing this course before they enroll. They will then be in a better position to evaluate in the first week of ADS if the rest of the course is going to meet their expectations. If not, they can get a full refund and move on, assuming they paid at the very last moment and request the refund within 14 days of paying.

Reply 1443

Becstasy

11

Original post by YorkMScCS

> I'm sure the content has been verified by an external source as I doubt York would be putting their name to the degree if it wasn't up to some standard.

We know that the content has been thrown together on the fly, as cohorts progress through. How could it have been verified?

Actually, they listen to the complaints and go back to review and update the content.

I had an extension and I was still learning the course content a week after the module had ended. When I refreshed the chapter had updated with new content and new task.

Reply 1444

Original post by Edtao3000

I'm sure the content has been verified by an external source as I doubt York would be putting their name to the degree if it wasn't up to some standard. Even if that was not the case, I think the marking for the written assignments are more likely to be at the masters level, though I recognise that doesn't help students when it's the content and lack of teaching that is sub-standard when compared to Udemy and could be a factor why they feel they aren't able to grasp the content, let alone the research style of the course.

I personally did not feel mislead by the marketing page, as the first question I asked when I read everything was "to what extent?" The degree may lead to those jobs they claimed or they may not. I have a vague memory that the language was all rather tentative, which was fine by me. I consider it similar to the scenario where you ask someone to go on a date with you and they tell you they are washing their hair - you have to read between the lines sometimes to get the true meaning. Or you can be sceptical, though you have to be careful with this as some people think certain questions should not be asked because they are impolite.

Regarding the IRP, I personally preferred being able to chose my own research topic. I thought that chat bot idea suggested by a lecturer was crap! Therefore, I was grateful we didn't have to choose from a list as they would probably all be rather diabolical.

I'm not sure how my numbers about my cohort are off. I stated about 30 and you are stating 40. To further clarify my point in that paragraph, with the magnitude of people graduating each year from any university you would have expected having a university degree to be worthless by now. Clearly that's not the case, which is likely because it's a qualification that other people use to qualify you, or not.

I agree with you that the feedback is not specific enough, which makes it hard to improve as they don't tell you what's wrong or could be improved, so you can easily guess wrong and perform worse next time.

Students have changed careers by merely mentioning this degree who did not have a CS background. I suspect they got junior roles, which is not bad as you have to start somewhere. If you are young, you can utilise the recruitment fairs to get onto a graduate scheme, or least an internship. A few interns have sat with me who were doing degrees that were not even related to the industry I'm in and some were even offered jobs. The degree gets you to the interview stage and the rest is down to you. If people believe you have the potential to learn and do the job they will hire you, just like those interns that got hired by my company that were doing degrees that were not related to my industry.

We don't have to agree, but the main reason why I'm replying here is so other people can read this thread and decide for themselves if the course is going to meet their objectives. I'm definitely more on the fence about this course now than at the beginning, but given my poor academic credentials, it was the best I could do at the time. Although, there have been tangential benefits of doing this degree which are probably more significant than the degree itself, I don't think they would have occurred had I not taken the course. I'm even more sure of what I want and what I don't want from any future jobs that I apply for. And the other reason for replying is it helps to improve my writing!

I believe the re-writing of the marketing page speaks for itself. How you read and interpret the original marketing might be different between people, but nobody can deny that its phrasing and the prestige of the University creates some expectations. Anyway, the misleading advertising isn't even a big issue compared to the others. The Programme Specification's description of the qualities of the course is simply out of touch with reality. I don't think any student can deny that the overall effort by the online team is very disappointing. The content itself is subjective and I believe with a little more effort it can be a lot more bearable, but still in its current structure it can never meet any of the expectations it created and its purpose. The most appropriate description of the course is an expensive lazy MOOC.

From my experience, Universities always give out projects to students because they realise that students are pretty much inexperienced and clueless by the time they reach the final project, but of course, always welcome student suggested topics. Being given the option to select a tutor suggested topic also solves other problems. You can get an estimate of what they are looking for and its workload. The course still has no clue about the length of the IRP and what kind of topics are doable. How funny is that? They are waiting for your cohort to finish with it, so they can have a baseline to compare for the next cohorts.

'I'm not sure how my numbers about my cohort are off' = 'I doubt the market will be flooded with people with degrees from York'. 10 years worth of cohorts from an offline MSc = 1 year of Online York. Even if you compare with other online conversion CS degrees, they have an upper bound for successful applicants and they limit their cohorts in-takes to 1-3 a year.

'Students have changed careers by merely mentioning this degree who did not have a CS background'. Imagine reviewing 25000 applications for a graduate position that accepts 5 graduates and being in awe that someone mentions that they have completed ADS @ York Online. If that was the case every student would have already made the switch. I'm not saying that this or any not top-tier degree will get you any job, but York does not prepare you at all for any kind of CS job and if anyone has done what you claim it's completely up to their personal efforts which does not correlate with them being students at York. Anyway, saying '5 out of 500 students made it' is simply survivor bias and does not represent any truth about the degree.

Reply 1445

Original post by mb120

I believe the re-writing of the marketing page speaks for itself. How you read and interpret the original marketing might be different between people, but nobody can deny that its phrasing and the prestige of the University creates some expectations. Anyway, the misleading advertising isn't even a big issue compared to the others. The Programme Specification's description of the qualities of the course is simply out of touch with reality. I don't think any student can deny that the overall effort by the online team is very disappointing. The content itself is subjective and I believe with a little more effort it can be a lot more bearable, but still in its current structure it can never meet any of the expectations it created and its purpose. The most appropriate description of the course is an expensive lazy MOOC.

From my experience, Universities always give out projects to students because they realise that students are pretty much inexperienced and clueless by the time they reach the final project, but of course, always welcome student suggested topics. Being given the option to select a tutor suggested topic also solves other problems. You can get an estimate of what they are looking for and its workload. The course still has no clue about the length of the IRP and what kind of topics are doable. How funny is that? They are waiting for your cohort to finish with it, so they can have a baseline to compare for the next cohorts.

'I'm not sure how my numbers about my cohort are off' = 'I doubt the market will be flooded with people with degrees from York'. 10 years worth of cohorts from an offline MSc = 1 year of Online York. Even if you compare with other online conversion CS degrees, they have an upper bound for successful applicants and they limit their cohorts in-takes to 1-3 a year.

'Students have changed careers by merely mentioning this degree who did not have a CS background'. Imagine reviewing 25000 applications for a graduate position that accepts 5 graduates and being in awe that someone mentions that they have completed ADS @ York Online. If that was the case every student would have already made the switch. I'm not saying that this or any not top-tier degree will get you any job, but York does not prepare you at all for any kind of CS job and if anyone has done what you claim it's completely up to their personal efforts which does not correlate with them being students at York. Anyway, saying '5 out of 500 students made it' is simply survivor bias and does not represent any truth about the degree.

I think most prospective web pages for degrees are marketing pieces, so to single out York's doesn't hold as much weight for an argument. You are thinking about what it is now whilst I think about the end result and what it is going to achieve for me. As the marketing is only suggesting possibilities, then it's reasonable. As people have got jobs in some of those areas because of mentioning the degree, it further reduces the weight of the marketing page being misleading. Sure, York are playing a numbers game, but it's in their favour. They are not claiming everyone gets those jobs and I don't think prospective students will be naive to think that either. I think you are expecting too much from the degree. You either need to get into a better institution or learn the additional skills on the side.

I don't understand why you think the York degree will not make you ready for an entry level job. I'll use management consulting as an example, most that land graduate jobs in the field don't necessarily have a related degree. So why would they even hire someone from Oxford that studied classics for the job? As I have stated many times, most people can do any of the jobs out there, so given that how do you discriminate on who gets a job or not? There is no law that states you need a degree to do a lot of jobs.

If one gets a masters, it's something they can put on their cv. It will hold more weight than any mooc or number of moocs you can do (they are called nano degrees for a reason). I think there will be enough people that get entry level jobs in CS with this. Then there are people who will be using this degree to enhance their cv or to get a pay rise. You can't look at this course and the value it offers in a narrow range.

I'm going to say this degree is at masters level as there are enough senior staff with PhDs and lecturing to check the content before students are enrolled. Therefore you are getting something tangible and valuable. Sure, they are creating the content at the very last moment and sometimes the assessment is not related to the taught module, but I think it's because it's their degree so it's their rules, though I think they have not made it clear about the style that the course is following - it's more research based. And they are following the "guide to the side" style, which is what seems to be recommended for online courses, rather than "sage on the stage", the traditional method of teaching. I don't agree with the style, but there are academic papers recommending it.

You are worried about dilution, but think about how many people have degrees out there already, and how many of them are doing jobs not related to their degrees. If we are talking about only entry positions, you may well be competing with people with degrees from higher ranking universities with non-related degrees. In my company, we churn through enough interns each year from the best, but no one is thinking there are too many people from X University with a degree that their degree is worthless. And there are the people that have got their skills for free or from Udemy who may well make the very best graduates look lame.

As I think anyone nowadays can learn anything for free, it's not the main factor why I would do a degree. It comes down to knowing what you want from the course and setting those objectives before you enrol. You can review the content of the first module and decide if it is going to meet your expectations. If not, you can quit and get a full refund, assuming you request it within 14 days of paying.

I agree that there are a lot of moocs that make this course look lame, but they will not give you a masters degree from a reputable university. If there is a better option for people already on this course, they would have taken it already. York are not going to change the style or content, but it doesn't mean you can't make the best of the situation.

If you want to be sure to receive a traditional education at university and fairly certain it will be rigorous, you'll have to attend on campus to a top university (in the top 5). This will maximise your career opportunities whether in CS or not. For everyone else, they'll have to make do with the best they can.

Reply 1446

elideli

Too much overthinking on this thread. It's simply as this: if you are looking for the experience, skip York, it's crap. To me learning is an experience, I shouldn't be agonizing two years to get my masters. If the experience isn't enjoyable, then you will have limited motivation through the course and won't learn as much, especially when you are converting from another field. The only selling point of this programme is you get a York degree (whatever that means) but at what cost? It's going to cost you two years of your time writing ESSAYS (possibly more) and 8K GBP. If you are having a second thought, it's already dead, just move on.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 1447

Original post by elideli

Too much overthinking on this thread. It's simply as this: if you are looking for the experience, skip York, it's crap. To me learning is an experience, I shouldn't be agonizing two years to get my masters. If the experience isn't enjoyable, then you will have limited motivation through the course and won't learn as much, especially when you are converting from another field. The only selling point of this programme is you get a York degree (whatever that means) but at what cost? It's going to cost you two years of your time writing ESSAYS (possibly more) and 8K GBP. If you are having a second thought, it's already dead, just move on.

Or maybe you are not considering everything? Goes back to knowing what you want from the course before you enrol.

I wasn't expecting so much CAAE, but as a tangent I got a nice bonus at work for essentially writing what I thought was the usual rubbish. I clearly wasn't expecting my essay writing skills to make a difference anywhere.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having doubts, especially if this is the best course people can get into. If there isn't something better, why would it make sense to quit if you are able to do the work?

Reply 1448

elideli

Original post by Edtao3000

Or maybe you are not considering everything? Goes back to knowing what you want from the course before you enrol.

I wasn't expecting so much CAAE, but as a tangent I got a nice bonus at work for essentially writing what I thought was the usual rubbish. I clearly wasn't expecting my essay writing skills to make a difference anywhere.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having doubts, especially if this is the best course people can get into. If there isn't something better, why would it make sense to quit if you are able to do the work?

Happy to hear that it worked for you but the truth is this programme being sold as a conversion course would be awful for the majority of people. The conversion experience is just not there. York created this proramme with the intention of making maximum money with least efforts. I just don't see any value in this programme for someone who want to change career. If you are not already working in the field, it would be a BIG waste of time enrolling in this course.

Reply 1449

Original post by elideli

Happy to hear that it worked for you but the truth is this programme being sold as a conversion course would be awful for the majority of people. The conversion experience is just not there. York created this proramme with the intention of making maximum money with least efforts. I just don't see any value in this programme for someone who want to change career. If you are not already working in the field, it would be a BIG waste of time enrolling in this course.

The conversion element I've discussed before on this thread. It's not made explicit anywhere, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume the course fits into that category.

I disagree that it won't help people who want a career change. If you start at the bottom of the ladder again, an employer is not going to expect you know everything. As I have written previously, people have got into software development without any prior knowledge, which shows you don't need to be taught the skills beforehand, nor even have a degree. There are quite a few people with degrees like classics, English and history in software development. There are several students on the course now with non-related CS degrees but are in software development. This suggests there is more than one path into software development or a CS related career.

Reply 1450

YorkMScCS

Software development isn't CS, I say that as a long-time developer...

This course really should have been called Computer Engineering or Software Development. It simply isn't CS.

Reply 1451

Original post by Edtao3000

The conversion element I've discussed before on this thread. It's not made explicit anywhere, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume the course fits into that category.

I disagree that it won't help people who want a career change. If you start at the bottom of the ladder again, an employer is not going to expect you know everything. As I have written previously, people have got into software development without any prior knowledge, which shows you don't need to be taught the skills beforehand, nor even have a degree. There are quite a few people with degrees like classics, English and history in software development. There are several students on the course now with non-related CS degrees but are in software development. This suggests there is more than one path into software development or a CS related career.

'The conversion element I've discussed before on this thread. It's not made explicit anywhere, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume the course fits into that category.' - you must be joking!

https://online.york.ac.uk/study-online/msc-computer-science-with-data-analytics-online/ - 'Our 100% online MSc Computer Science with Data Analytics programme is designed for working professionals and graduates who may not have an academic background in computer science or data analytics and want to start a career in this fascinating and lucrative field.'

https://online.york.ac.uk/msccomputersciencewithdataanalytics/ - 'This 100% online Computer Science with Data Analytics MSc programme is designed for working professionals and graduates who may not currently have a computer science background and want to launch their career in this in-demand and lucrative field.'

Programme Specification 2018, 2019 (didn't even bother with releasing a 2020 version - probably because they are aware of the state of the previous ones):

- 'The online MSc Computer Science with Data Analytics (CSDA) conversion programme is designed for working professionals or academically strong graduates looking to develop their data analytics skills who do not have an academic background in computer science or data analytics.'

- 'The PLOs are ambitious because this is a conversion programme, meaning that students can join the the programme with no previous computer science qualifications at UG level. It is will not be easy to achieve all of these outcomes, and graduates from this programme will be well-prepared to advance their career prospects within computing, data analytics and related sectors.'

- 'The programme has been aimed to be a ‘conversion’ course, and so its PLOs are aligned with the current state of art in computer science and data analytics research.'

Typical conversation with the Head of the Programme:
-Student1: 'The content is really shallow and the delivery is very disappointing'
-Head of the Programme: 'This is just a conversion degree...'
-Student2: 'There is no teaching, tutor input or practical learning in the module. How do you expect me to teach everything myself?'
-Head of the Programme: 'This is an MSc and we expect more and more self-learning'

Reply 1452

Original post by mb120

'The conversion element I've discussed before on this thread. It's not made explicit anywhere, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume the course fits into that category.' - you must be joking!

https://online.york.ac.uk/study-online/msc-computer-science-with-data-analytics-online/ - 'Our 100% online MSc Computer Science with Data Analytics programme is designed for working professionals and graduates who may not have an academic background in computer science or data analytics and want to start a career in this fascinating and lucrative field.'

https://online.york.ac.uk/msccomputersciencewithdataanalytics/ - 'This 100% online Computer Science with Data Analytics MSc programme is designed for working professionals and graduates who may not currently have a computer science background and want to launch their career in this in-demand and lucrative field.'

Programme Specification 2018, 2019 (didn't even bother with releasing a 2020 version - probably because they are aware of the state of the previous ones):

- 'The online MSc Computer Science with Data Analytics (CSDA) conversion programme is designed for working professionals or academically strong graduates looking to develop their data analytics skills who do not have an academic background in computer science or data analytics.'

- 'The PLOs are ambitious because this is a conversion programme, meaning that students can join the the programme with no previous computer science qualifications at UG level. It is will not be easy to achieve all of these outcomes, and graduates from this programme will be well-prepared to advance their career prospects within computing, data analytics and related sectors.'

- 'The programme has been aimed to be a ‘conversion’ course, and so its PLOs are aligned with the current state of art in computer science and data analytics research.'

Typical conversation with the Head of the Programme:
-Student1: 'The content is really shallow and the delivery is very disappointing'
-Head of the Programme: 'This is just a conversion degree...'
-Student2: 'There is no teaching, tutor input or practical learning in the module. How do you expect me to teach everything myself?'
-Head of the Programme: 'This is an MSc and we expect more and more self-learning'

I think you have missed my point. The marketing page doesn't mention this is a conversion course anywhere. You are making an inference based on the wording that it is. I'll show you an example of this style of tentative writing. "Sex can be a very pleasurable experience." Am I offering sex? Am I experienced in sex? Am I talking about the discomfort of sex? Or is this something else? If York's marketing page had used the word "guaranteed" that students will be able to launch a new career, that would support what you are claiming, but it doesn't.

I have read a few CVs that gave the impression the candidate was experienced in doing the job, but with further detailed questioning at the interview, it became clear they had no experience. After re-reading their CV it was clear that they were only alluding to the idea that they can do the work rather than having actual experience. These people tend to be very good at not answering questions presented to them at the interview. Although they are articulate and confident, that's all they have going for them. Imagine you were interviewing a very attractive person for a job and they were doing everything right. There is even some chemistry between the two of you and you think you're in with a chance with a date with them. And who knows where that can lead to? But of course that can only happen if you offer them the job. Are they making a strong impression or are they misleading you?

As you don't have links to the other points you raise, it's hard to verify, but as they were found after the fact of enrolling, they hold less weight on being a factor in being misled, as the claims weren't made at the point that influenced your initial decision.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 1453

@mb120 Btw, did you really think the course was guaranteed to get you into a CS related job? And were you telling that to family and friends?

Reply 1454

Original post by YorkMScCS

Software development isn't CS, I say that as a long-time developer...

This course really should have been called Computer Engineering or Software Development. It simply isn't CS.

You have a good point here. They could have been more specific with what they were offering, given the broad scope of CS, making it more relevant for areas that people are interested in. As it stands, they have gone for the softer elements in CS, which doesn't appease those looking for something more rigorous.

However, there is a Venn diagram floating around that shows the difference between the objectives of the business versus the academic world. The business world is more concerned with the final product and less concerned about the theoretical arguments, whilst the academic world is more concerned about the theoretical arguments and less about the final product.

These theoretical arguments fall into qualitatitive and quantitative categories, with York being more the former than the latter, but there are clearly overlaps, too.

Reply 1455

Original post by Edtao3000

@mb120 Btw, did you really think the course was guaranteed to get you into a CS related job? And were you telling that to family and friends?

My previous post simply countered your argument that the course is not defined as a conversion course anywhere. You seem to ignore the Programme Specification which is a lot more important than the marketing link. However, the marketing link is very clear whether this is a conversion degree or not anyway.

No, I did not expect this degree to turn me into a CS genius and guarantee me a number of jobs for me to choose. However, I think I need to remind you of one statement found in the marketing link:

'As a graduate, you’ll be prepared for a range of positions including in software and web development, programming, business intelligence, business analysis and data warehousing. Our world-class Russell Group institution and leading Department of Computer Science offer the global reach and industry-relevant content that set our programmes apart.'

This statement alone creates some expectations regarding the nature of the degree, one of which would be your development in practical skills in those areas and getting experience with 'industry-relevant content'. If you did not believe that the course somehow will help you with getting you job-ready (which btw the course is still claiming it does), you would expect that it would be closer to that than being an expensive garbage MOOC.

Web development is completely absent.
BI/BA is completely absent.
Data warehousing is completely absent.
Software development = a 90s GUI with a library that is obsolete and OCLE?

How exactly is any student prepared for any position? I'm one step before finishing the course and I have practically got zero skills off the course. The few students who defend this course have never presented any argument with facts why this course is not as garbage as the majority says.

The bottom line is Masters involve specialist study not broad introductory Wikipedia level theoretical knowledge and since this is an MSc you expect to get some specialist skills.

Reply 1456

Original post by mb120

My previous post simply countered your argument that the course is not defined as a conversion course anywhere. You seem to ignore the Programme Specification which is a lot more important than the marketing link. However, the marketing link is very clear whether this is a conversion degree or not anyway.

No, I did not expect this degree to turn me into a CS genius and guarantee me a number of jobs for me to choose. However, I think I need to remind you of one statement found in the marketing link:

'As a graduate, you’ll be prepared for a range of positions including in software and web development, programming, business intelligence, business analysis and data warehousing. Our world-class Russell Group institution and leading Department of Computer Science offer the global reach and industry-relevant content that set our programmes apart.'

This statement alone creates some expectations regarding the nature of the degree, one of which would be your development in practical skills in those areas and getting experience with 'industry-relevant content'. If you did not believe that the course somehow will help you with getting you job-ready (which btw the course is still claiming it does), you would expect that it would be closer to that than being an expensive garbage MOOC.

Web development is completely absent.
BI/BA is completely absent.
Data warehousing is completely absent.
Software development = a 90s GUI with a library that is obsolete and OCLE?

How exactly is any student prepared for any position? I'm one step before finishing the course and I have practically got zero skills off the course. The few students who defend this course have never presented any argument with facts why this course is not as garbage as the majority says.

The bottom line is Masters involve specialist study not broad introductory Wikipedia level theoretical knowledge and since this is an MSc you expect to get some specialist skills.

If the course does not explicitly state "this is a conversion course" on any official documentation, you can't assume it is, which is what you are doing.

The paragraph you highlighted does not explicitly state to what extent the course will delve into those areas, like how prepared a student will be and how relevant the content will be. It's tentative language. It's a technique marketing and sales people use where they create scenarios which are potentially true. Here's another example: "It will be cold some time this year." Am I genius for predicting the future or is this just obvious?

The job-ready statement is lacking clarity in how job-ready? At this point I think it means at the bottom of the ladder as a junior or newbie. When you join as a newbie, employers don't expect you to know anything, as I've already mentioned and they expect you to learn on the job pretty quickly. There are people that have gone through the non-relevant degree, intern and graduate process that are doing this course you can ask, if you don't believe me. Anything else is expecting too much. I don't think any degree will make you competitive compared to someone already experienced in the field, if you don't have any prior experience.

The degree is theoretical. There is no mention that they will teach you practical skills in the areas mentioned. I think most degrees are theoretical in nature and lacking in practical use. In my bachelors there was a lot of theory about economics, but it would have been more useful if they showed us how to use Excel for modeling these theories. I posted the full David Silver lectures from a UCL course a few pages back and there was a lot theory there with no advice on how to actually build the models discussed. The lectures were just notes from the Sutton and Barto book, so in effect the students could have just read from the textbook, which is no different to what we are doing on this course. This style of "guide at the side" is also the recommended way for online learning rather than the "sage on the stage" teaching. I don't agree with this style that has support from various academic papers.

Where is the link to the programme specification? More importantly, where was the official communication for this? For those reading this, mb120 is referring to unofficial documents that students are not meant to have access to. Make of that what you will, but as it was not made official to students it does not hold weight as York can say whatever they want to justify them.

I believe I have presented you with facts and some good arguments for doing this course. I've provided a solution for people who have the high expectations like yourself. I've even provided a solution on how to evaluate this course and minimize the financial and time risk. If the course is garbage why are you still here?

I read some supposedly true stories about smart, handsome men that were tricked/forced into marrying women they were not attracted to. These stories don't seem plausible or make sense, yet so many make claim to them. The arguments you are presenting fits the pattern of these stories that somehow you deserved better but was tricked. I think these men tricked/misled themselves about how smart and handsome they were and backfilled a story to justify why they are disappointed with their wives. This was the best they could do and they were bitter.

In summary, I understand you don't like the content and feel you have been misled, but this comes down to your expectations. I think you have misinterpreted what you have read from the York marketing page and set unrealistic expectations. If the wording of your expectations matched the wording from York, you may have something, but they don't. York have used tentative language and your imagination has done the rest. Therefore, I'm surprised you are still on this course as most people would have quit to find something better, unless this is the best they can do. If this is the best you can do, then it's even less reason to be disappointed. If you didn't have any expectations or what you wanted this degree to achieve for you from the beginning, then having buyer's regret now seems ridiculous as anything you have now will be exceeding your initial expectations of zero. The quality of the content and delivery is terrible compared to Udemy, but I think the course does prepare you for an entry level job in any of the areas you have mentioned in your post, as I have previously argued and demonstrated. Have you even tried to apply for any entry level jobs?

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 1457

Original post by Edtao3000

If the course does not explicitly state "this is a conversion course" on any official documentation, you can't assume it is, which is what you are doing.

The paragraph you highlighted does not explicitly state to what extent the course will delve into those areas, like how prepared a student will be and how relevant the content will be. It's tentative language. It's a technique marketing and sales people use where they create scenarios which are potentially true. Here's another example: "It will be cold some time this year." Am I genius for predicting the future or is this just obvious?

The job-ready statement is lacking clarity in how job-ready? At this point I think it means at the bottom of the ladder as a junior or newbie. When you join as a newbie, employers don't expect you to know anything, as I've already mentioned and they expect you to learn on the job pretty quickly. There are people that have gone through the non-relevant degree, intern and graduate process that are doing this course you can ask, if you don't believe me. Anything else is expecting too much. I don't think any degree will make you competitive compared to someone already experienced in the field, if you don't have any prior experience.

The degree is theoretical. There is no mention that they will teach you practical skills in the areas mentioned. I think most degrees are theoretical in nature and lacking in practical use. In my bachelors there was a lot of theory about economics, but it would have been more useful if they showed us how to use Excel for modeling these theories. I posted the full David Silver lectures from a UCL course a few pages back and there was a lot theory there with no advice on how to actually build the models discussed. The lectures were just notes from the Sutton and Barto book, so in effect the students could have just read from the textbook, which is no different to what we are doing on this course. This style of "guide at the side" is also the recommended way for online learning rather than the "sage on the stage" teaching. I don't agree with this style that has support from various academic papers.

Where is the link to the programme specification? More importantly, where was the official communication for this? For those reading this, mb120 is referring to unofficial documents that students are not meant to have access to. Make of that what you will, but as it was not made official to students it does not hold weight as York can say whatever they want to justify them.

I believe I have presented you with facts and some good arguments for doing this course. I've provided a solution for people who have the high expectations like yourself. I've even provided a solution on how to evaluate this course and minimize the financial and time risk. If the course is garbage why are you still here?

I read some supposedly true stories about smart, handsome men that were tricked/forced into marrying women they were not attracted to. These stories don't seem plausible or make sense, yet so many make claim to them. The arguments you are presenting fits the pattern of these stories that somehow you deserved better but was tricked. I think these men tricked/misled themselves about how smart and handsome they were and backfilled a story to justify why they are disappointed with their wives. This was the best they could do and they were bitter.

In summary, I understand you don't like the content and feel you have been misled, but this comes down to your expectations. I think you have misinterpreted what you have read from the York marketing page and set unrealistic expectations. If the wording of your expectations matched the wording from York, you may have something, but they don't. York have used tentative language and your imagination has done the rest. Therefore, I'm surprised you are still on this course as most people would have quit to find something better, unless this is the best they can do. If this is the best you can do, then it's even less reason to be disappointed. If you didn't have any expectations or what you wanted this degree to achieve for you from the beginning, then having buyer's regret now seems ridiculous as anything you have now will be exceeding your initial expectations of zero. The quality of the content and delivery is terrible compared to Udemy, but I think the course does prepare you for an entry level job in any of the areas you have mentioned in your post, as I have previously argued and demonstrated. Have you even tried to apply for any entry level jobs?

Unfortunately, you are misinformed. I couldn't justify why you ignored my mentions to the Programme Specification but now I understand that you believe that it's an unofficial document and that students are not supposed to have access to it. Both statements are wrong.

https://www.york.ac.uk/students/studying/manage/programmes/programme-specs/
"Programme specifications are a concise description of the intended aims and learning outcomes of a programme, and the means by which the outcomes are achieved and assessed. They are intended for:
undergraduate and postgraduate students on the programme
staff teaching and/or administering the programme
former students who may need to provide details of what their programme covered to supplement their transcript
prospective students who want to understand a programme in more detail"

You can read more about whether a Programme Specification is required for a course and its purpose here: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/13488/3/Quality-Code-Chapter-A3.pdf

You might confuse the matter of access with the CS portal. It is true that online students had access to the CS portal but they weren't supposed to. However, this is not the case for the Programme Specification. Everyone can access the 2018 and 2019 editions here: https://www.york.ac.uk/students/studying/manage/programmes/programme-specs/postgraduate/computer-science/

Since you are in the first cohort, you should know that only the 2018 edition existed back then - which is also true for my case. At that time, the module catalogue had no information about the modules and they only added information to the module catalogue just as a module started. The Programme Specification was the only credible and official source for detailed information about the course. The 2019 edition is exactly the same but does not have the Map tabs - which is misconduct.

I have also requested from my supervisor all documents that apply to our course or describe the qualities of the course and the University's responsibilities and this document was included in his reply with a comment that its only inaccuracy is the Head of Programme. Furthermore, it is also confirmed by the Executive Officer to the Academic Registrar that the course should have been as described in the Programme Specification. You can have a read, if you haven't already, and see whether what we are studying is what was advertised - I have mentioned a lot of times already how out of touch with reality is so I don't see a point using any quotes. Furthermore, as you might know, emails are classified as official documents and in my communication with members of the staff I have frequently encountered the term 'conversion': ' The course is a conversion course and pitched to be completed online and part-time.', 'As this is a conversion course we do need to aim at a basic starting point with the expectation that students can get hold of this and then research/investigate into more demanding areas.', 'Given the nature of the conversion course we provide a high level of potential student-tutor interaction than on-campus', '...given this is a conversion masters...'. If you are still unsure whether the Programme Specification is an official binding document and if our course is a conversion course, you are free to contact any tutor and find out.

You might have ignored this document when you decided to apply, but I had advised this document to make an informed decision. You might argue that this might have been what they planned and they didn't update it. However, as I said earlier, both 2018 and 2019 have the same Programme Information and the University is obliged to keep it up to date and accurate. Hence, if the information provided there is untrue it is false advertising and not communicating such changes is misconduct.

The degree is indeed highly theoretical but it is not advertised as such. There is a special emphasis on the 'balance of theory and balance' and how it achieves preparing students for careers and other stuff that we never saw. Fyi, the Chair of Board of Studies actually believes that 'modules have more practical content than we need'.

Unfortunately, I cannot reply to all your points as that would make my answer very lengthy and it's time-consuming. I might have created an impression that I expected too much out of this course, however, I only expected what I've read about and what any student would expect from Master's studies. Why am I still in this course? Unfortunately, most of the issues with the course were not communicated by previous cohorts and some of them praised a few modules that were the last for me. I was already in my 4th module when I joined the complaints and I naively thought that I might see improvements in a short time. By the time I understood that there will be no improvement, I was about to start the modules that I was mostly interested in to begin with and which were supposed to be of high quality. Transferring to another similar type course would be pointless as chances are it will be the same or worse and most of my module credits would not translate to other modules. I guess I could have tried for a 1-year on-campus MSc but I got exhausted mentally from this course and I'm unsure whether I would be accepted or whether I could handle it (given the poor knowledge I got from this course). So, I was left with withdrawing from this course with limited knowledge and no credentials or continuing for ~half a year for limited knowledge and the MSc title. Unfortunately, I don't see any value in my last modules but whatever

Reply 1458

reyjusuf

15

don't you get a Post Graduate Certificate if you completed 4 courses?

Reply 1459

elideli