Originally Posted by Ciggie

Yer fucking right AB, ma cocking rap ain't up wiv the times, ya knobber! ))))))

Golly gosh!

I'm outraged at the very idea of reducing the course from an average three years down to two. Don't they realise it will cause mass unemployment in the Union bars, the many cafe bars and nightclubs, it just isn't on this loss of valuable drinking time.

Originally Posted by Ciggie

Golly gosh, when we have the CBI complaining that graduate recruits can't spell their own name and need help picking their own noses, is it really wise to reduce a university course to 2 years?

because the University Academic Year is only 30 weeks , however reducing courses to 2 years would up the workload of academic staff leaving them less time to do research and consulting in Industry ...

3*30 = 2*45

Originally Posted by mph1977

because the University Academic Year is only 30 weeks , however reducing courses to 2 years would up the workload of academic staff leaving them less time to do research and consulting in Industry ...

3*30 = 2*45

And less time to supervise Masters and PhD students, who have their dissertations to write outwith those 30 weeks and who can be incredibly demanding - their futures are at stake after all.

Consulting is done in the academic's own time, unless by agreement with their employing institution, and they are after all entitled to do what they want with their own time, just as you or I.

Research brings bucks into a university, particularly in the days when HEFC/SHEFC funding was linked to standing in the Research Assessment Exercises, so it's understandable that there's an emphasis placed on it but the pressure to produce research is quite intense and it comes from management down. Overstretch is not unique to the military. Just have a look at what HEFC want to achieve with your money. Whether you think they should or not, they currently are and it's the academic staff who have to deliver.

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

And less time to supervise Masters and PhD students, who have their dissertations to write outwith those 30 weeks and who can be incredibly demanding - their futures are at stake after all.

Consulting is done in the academic's own time, unless by agreement with their employing institution, and they are after all entitled to do what they want with their own time, just as you or I.

Research brings bucks into a university, particularly in the days when HEFC/SHEFC funding was linked to standing in the Research Assessment Exercises, so it's understandable that there's an emphasis placed on it but the pressure to produce research is quite intense and it comes from management down. Overstretch is not unique to the military. Just have a look at what HEFC want to achieve with your money. Whether you think they should or not, they currently are and it's the academic staff who have to deliver.

In all of the debates around university funding no one (I am aware of) has asked the question do students get value for money?
At Salford University, for example, the vice chancellor spent £13,000 on a chandeller for a building. And has a wetroom in his office. Not to mention a house worth several hundred thousands of pounds.

On the issue of supervision time; I have just completed my MA - I wrote my dissertation with one supervisory meeting and that was it. Many of my tutors have openly stated that they will not be available for input during the summer anyway. One even sent out an email stating they would be unavailable until September leaving their students with no supervision at all.

In any case, a majority of MA dissertations are not handed in inside the semester dates but, recognising the time needed, students are given the summer as well. The same goes for undergrads who have the summer between their second and third years, as a general rule.

The argument that academics and universities need the breaks to supervise students properly is not one that I can consider true.

It is not right to assume that academics need the summer to supervise students. They don't.
For postgrads particularly, I don't see the need for significant supervision.

Edit: Link and amusing facebook group regarding chandeller (though, not entirely relevent to thread).

Student Direct » Vice Chancellor: “Student Finances Will Get Worse Before They Get Better”

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...2168733&ref=ts

My dear AB, despite my fuck, cunt, shitewearer, medical problem, known to many as, dogfucker, arseballs, titwilly, as Tourettes fannylicking Syndrome, I have actually got a camelcock, toewater, mancream degree in Human Resources, and I'm rather proud of it.

Originally Posted by greenbaggyskin

It is only my opinion, but that is rubbish!

Let me explain why it's not.

Option A: You get the same number of teaching hours in two years as you would get in three. Best case is that the degree costs exactly the same. The lecturers get paid year round anyway and, for some reason, they don't want any more for doing extra hours in the lecture hall rather than doing research or playing snooker, depending on what uni they work at. Worst case is that the lecturers tell their employers to investigate sex and travel. More staff have to be employed to cover the extra teaching time and costs increase.

Option B: The university keeps the annual number of teaching hours the same and just deletes the third year of the course. I mean, who the hell needs to know ∇x A = μH exists, never mind what it means? Result: the government saves £10k per "graduate"

Which option do you think out cash strapped government will go for?

Originally Posted by Ancient_Mariner

Let me explain why it's not.

Option A: You get the same number of teaching hours in two years as you would get in three. Best case is that the degree costs exactly the same. The lecturers get paid year round anyway and, for some reason, they don't want any more for doing extra hours in the lecture hall rather than doing research or playing snooker, depending on what uni they work at. Worst case is that the lecturers tell their employers to investigate sex and travel. More staff have to be employed to cover the extra teaching time and costs increase.

Option B: The university keeps the annual number of teaching hours the same and just deletes the third year of the course. I mean, who the hell needs to know ∇x A = μH exists, never mind what it means? Result: the government saves £10k per "graduate"

Which option do you think out cash strapped government will go for?

Option C: universities become Creative and staff are given one of the two current semesters as a break ("research") period and modules are arranged around this new timetable.

Yes, AM. A question of understanding the mean of, and difference between 2 words: value, and worth. What is the value of flexing your brain to popular rubbish - 0. What is it worth to me and everyone I share the world with to to develop and comprehend what we live in - indepensible and necessary........and short breathe out.

Originally Posted by gimpmask

In all of the debates around university funding no one (I am aware of) has asked the question do students get value for money?

Well, there’s a whole bag of worms in itself. Given that fewer people complained about the value for money of their education when it was gained in the days before it was their money they were getting value for, asking the students themselves is probably a very bad idea. The cynic in me says that the 3rd class, the early-exit and the disappointed would be over-represented in the ‘not satisfied’ category.

Originally Posted by gimpmask

At Salford University, for example, the vice chancellor spent £13,000 on a chandeller for a building. And has a wetroom in his office. Not to mention a house worth several hundred thousands of pounds.

Vice-Chancellors are tossers and widely acknowledged as an embarrassment in how they choose to dispose of limited funds - Private Eye’s ‘High Principals’ column is a constant source of bitter amusement to me. But the noticeable thing about almost every Vice-Chancellor I can think of who’s been censored for misallocating funds is that they aren’t career academics. They’re businessmen with academic qualifications.

Originally Posted by gimpmask

On the issue of supervision time; I have just completed my MA - I wrote my dissertation with one supervisory meeting and that was it. Many of my tutors have openly stated that they will not be available for input during the summer anyway. One even sent out an email stating they would be unavailable until September leaving their students with no supervision at all.

Those who’re supervising large numbers of non-native English speakers generally have to put in a lot more time with their students than, say, an English Literature expert with a handful of Yanks and Brits in their ken. Apart from the language side, there’s also a far greater pastoral aspect to it and in particular they have to reinforce the message that when you’re at a UK university it actually doesn’t do to ‘show your thinking is aligned’ with the tutor by quoting large chunks verbatim the way you’ve done at home for the past 13 years. And particularly at those places which have chosen a lower entry requirement for language, the need to provide reassurance and investigate whether the student actually does understand their topic regardless of spelling and grammar takes up a lot of time.
For many of the academic staff, the summer is the also only time they get to concentrate on their own research and programme design for any consistent period uninterrupted. If they’re confident that their cohort can get by on their own it doesn’t honestly surprise me that they’re concentrating on research, programme validation, colloquia or teaching prep for the incoming class instead. It’s a great big sausage-machine and the end result of stopping it is entirely predictable – nobody gets any sausages.

Originally Posted by gimpmask

In any case, a majority of MA dissertations are not handed in inside the semester dates but, recognising the time needed, students are given the summer as well. The same goes for undergrads who have the summer between their second and third years, as a general rule.

Which is why I responded as I did to the implication that academic staff only work within the 30 or so weeks of the formal academic year. It isn’t true. Summers are not one great vacation or a chance to work a homer. The workload just shifts away from student-focussed activities.

Originally Posted by gimpmask

The argument that academics and universities need the breaks to supervise students properly is not one that I can consider true.

That wasn’t the argument. The argument is that academics and universities need the breaks to do everything else that’s expected of them in addition to supervising students.

Originally Posted by gimpmask

For postgrads particularly, I don't see the need for significant supervision.

Have a word with your international classmates then. They’re the ones being charged 3+ times the fees for the experience and they’re the ones demanding face time. The customer is always right.