Student Satisfaction Survey

Blush_01

I'm sure everyone else got this e-mail too, but here's the link to the survey anyway.

UCD are conducting a student satisfaction survey. Give it a bash here.

Have fun now kids!

Vainglory

Funny that all the questions are phrased in the positive. Orwell would be proud.

gubbie

I work in surveys. If ye guys knew how much this is costing the college...

McGinty

Hi

I did the survey and whether they take on board people's comments it was wonderful to vent my spleen and how UCD should improve things, also note the amount of questions relating to UCD's international reputation, if they can't get it right with the academic staff and students, what hope have they of gaining a foot on the international scene. I can imagine that they will spin some bull**** propoganda out of it rather than deal with the real issues at heart, and that is an adminstration that gives a smooth running to students and staff, not the micky mouse operation we deal with at the moment. PS: who expects the exam results to be uploaded on time :-)

BKtje

Only things i had to complain about was
a) Late exam timetables
b) Problems logging in to choose courses at start of year

Everything else has been pretty ok for me.

snickerpuss

Yeah they need to sort out the basics before they can become an internationally acclaimed university or whatever they want to be.
My lecturers would sometimes carry around rolls of toilet paper because there were no erasers for the boards.

That ain't a world class university.

Admin and exams/logistics office couldn't logistic their way out of a hole. At least in my experience.

Assets Model

I hope they actually take the comments on board. I gave most things an unsatisfactory. F**kers.

caridee2

Ditto, most of my answers were 1s and 2s...I found it very satisfying to vent although nothing will come of it. If a friend told me they were considering UCD my advice would be don't. EVER. Having also attended another university in Dublin as an undergrad (dropped out for reasons too compicated to try explain here!), UCD just does not measure up. The woeful location, ugly and downright depressing architecture and insane prices would be manageable if it weren't for the complete lack of regard for students and pathetic planning when it comes to enrolment, registration, exams etc. They honestly couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery and don't care either! :mad: And don't get me started on Horizons...what a joke! I've only one year left and when I get my degree next year I'll be off that stage and out of the car park so fast you won't see me for dust! I'll never go back!

Jonny Arson

Haha I had great craic earlier completing that survey earlier giving the Hugh Brady Revolution and absolute hammering and a half!

They'll probably gloss up the results to put UCD in a positive light

Bison

snickerpuss wrote:

My lecturers would sometimes carry around rolls of toilet paper because there were no erasers for the boards. .

Good point. If you go to a snooker hall you get balls + chalk handed out which you then return. Would it be too much to ask that the lecturers get the mircrophone, PLUS chalk and a duster and then return them for the next lecturer???? The amount of times I have heard "Well I would love to draw this reaction but...."

Pythia

http://www.mercator.ie/ucd/staff/

The staff have one too, it's even longer.

funky penguin

B-K-DzR wrote:

Only things i had to complain about was
a) Late exam timetables
b) Problems logging in to choose courses at start of year

Everything else has been pretty ok for me.

Pretty much the same for me. Enrolment and exams were my only real gripes.

Red Alert

The survey was quite in-depth although many of the questions were loaded in nature.

jimi_t

gubbie wrote:

I work in surveys. If ye guys knew how much this is costing the college...

Ballpark figure? PM me if you can't say; no alterior motive, just curious.

Dalfiatach

From the negative comments here and on other threads it seems UCD has got even worse since I was there (1991-95). Back then the administration/logistics/organisation were just plain ludicrous, the constant gouging was blatant, the students were seen as an unfortunate overhead getting in the way of UCD making money, the lecturers were decidedly second-rate, the course content was outdated, the library was stocked with 1950s jokes of books...same old, same old.

World Class University me hole. I've spent the last decade telling anyone who would listen not to go to UCD. Place is a kip, run by parasites and attended, in the main, by smug braindead Deefer rich-kids. And nobody is willing to stand up and actually criticise the place, because yer supposed to be grateful that you are attending such a "flagship" university with the "cream" of Ireland's students. And the Irish herd mentality wins again.

Pride Fighter

UCD has been ok for me. It is an adequate University. I have had no problems so far but am aware plenty of people had. As for the guy saying it is full of D4 rich kids I would agree. It can be a bit cliquey at times. I do not think it can become a world class University until it can charge fees again. Free fees benefits the rich on the whole. A sensible thing to do would be to introduce fees for people whose parents earn a combined income of over 100,000 euro. This would benefit the students from poorer and middle class backgrounds. They can afford 3-5 thousand euro a year if their parents are on that type of bread. Well that is my 2 cents anyway.

Chakar

I haven't got any serious complaints about UCD. To be honest I like UCD. It's a good university but they do get it wrong with tutorials, management of academic submissions and with the arrangements of exams. But the university has undergone enormous changes in recent years under President Hugh Brady so I'll cut them some slack.

Jonny Arson

Dalfiatach wrote:

From the negative comments here and on other threads it seems UCD has got even worse since I was there (1991-95). Back then the administration/logistics/organisation were just plain ludicrous, the constant gouging was blatant, the students were seen as an unfortunate overhead getting in the way of UCD making money, the lecturers were decidedly second-rate, the course content was outdated, the library was stocked with 1950s jokes of books...same old, same old.

Jeez, I've been here 3 years and the place has got progressively worse year on year since... by that logic you probably had it alot better than us in 95'!

maxi-twist

Pride Fighter wrote:

UCD has been ok for me. It is an adequate University. I have had no problems so far but am aware plenty of people had. As for the guy saying it is full of D4 rich kids I would agree. It can be a bit cliquey at times. I do not think it can become a world class University until it can charge fees again. Free fees benefits the rich on the whole. A sensible thing to do would be to introduce fees for people whose parents earn a combined income of over 100,000 euro. This would benefit the students from poorer and middle class backgrounds. They can afford 3-5 thousand euro a year if their parents are on that type of bread. Well that is my 2 cents anyway.

OT.
Whats your logic in this? UCD still get the same amount of money whether fees are paid for by the government or by people. Dont see how rich people paying for university would make it any better of a university. It'd pretty much exactly the same. How would introducing fee's benefit the students from poorer and middle class backgrounds?

Dalfiatach

maxi-twist wrote:

OT.
Whats your logic in this? UCD still get the same amount of money whether fees are paid for by the government or by people. Dont see how rich people paying for university would make it any better of a university. It'd pretty much exactly the same. How would introducing fee's benefit the students from poorer and middle class backgrounds?

Well, the argument against at the time was that free fees would just end up as a subsidy to the already-rich, and wouldn't help students from poorer backgrounds get into college. Which is exactly what happened, and our universities (particularly UCD and TCD) are jam-packed with people who are, quite frankly, morons - but morons with very rich parents who can pay for the grinds to get them through the Leaving to do an Arts "degree" in Greek Philosophy and Art History. It's a huge waste of resources on a societal level.

Instead, if the rich had to fork out a few grand a year then darling, but thick, little Clarissa might get married off early instead of sending her to waste 3 years in college, leaving a place free for Anto from de Mun (who should get free fees and the dole while studying).

Something like - parental income over €100K - 3K a year fees
parental income under €35K - free fees plus the dole
In the middle - free fees

Self-financing, more or less, increases social mobility, ensures we utilise the talents of all our people effectively, stops wasting resources "educating" thick rich kids. Sorted.

Blush_01

Ketchup to go with that chip?

Not all rich kids are thick (or do Arts). Not all poor kids are smart (and some poor kids do Arts). And whether you consider an Arts degree a "real" degree or not, I'd ask you to bear in mind that some of us do what we do well, do what we love and what we do is done through Arts. You do what you do, I should hope you do what you love, and whether you did it through Arts or not makes no difference.

gubbie

Dalfiatach wrote:

Well, the argument against at the time was that free fees would just end up as a subsidy to the already-rich, and wouldn't help students from poorer backgrounds get into college. Which is exactly what happened, and our universities (particularly UCD and TCD) are jam-packed with people who are, quite frankly, morons - but morons with very rich parents who can pay for the grinds to get them through the Leaving to do an Arts "degree" in Greek Philosophy and Art History. It's a huge waste of resources on a societal level.

Instead, if the rich had to fork out a few grand a year then darling, but thick, little Clarissa might get married off early instead of sending her to waste 3 years in college, leaving a place free for Anto from de Mun (who should get free fees and the dole while studying).

Something like - parental income over €100K - 3K a year fees
parental income under €35K - free fees plus the dole
In the middle - free fees

I don't think it can be that black and white. Say a family's wage's are €100,000 a year. They get taxed on half of that automatically. Now if they've say 4 children in college (I've heard plenty of instances), some having to live away from home, it basically leaves nothing if fee's were introduced.

Dontico

I hated UCD as a learning place. Its ran by a bunch of blind monkeys.

Dalfiatach

Blush_01 wrote:

Ketchup to go with that chip?

Not all rich kids are thick (or do Arts). Not all poor kids are smart (and some poor kids do Arts). And whether you consider an Arts degree a "real" degree or not, I'd ask you to bear in mind that some of us do what we do well, do what we love and what we do is done through Arts. You do what you do, I should hope you do what you love, and whether you did it through Arts or not makes no difference.

Strawman arguments.

I never said all rich kids were thick, or all poor kids were smart. But clearly, our universities are disproportionately full of rich muppets because Daddy can afford to send them, whereas large numbers of talented, but poor, kids simply cannot afford to go to college. This is obviously not an optimal use of resources, nor is it good for our society in the long run. No human society in history has survived long-term if it calcifies into entrenched privilege and entrenched poverty. Increasing social mobility is in the interests of everyone...including the rich.

So, we need a mechanism whereby talented people from the bottom rungs have the means to better themselves. This can be paid for by stopping wasting resources on stupid people who happen to be rich getting an education at the taxpayers expense. Talented people who happen to be rich will, of course, continue to be educated.

It's about meritocracy. Creating a society where how far you can get in life depends on your innate talents, not Daddy's bank balance and golfing partners.

This is one of the most unequal societies in the developed world and getting worse, because we do not have proactive measures to increase social mobility. Keep this up for another generation or two, and we'll be ripe for social conflict and revolution. Such is the way of the world.

maxi-twist

Dalfiatach wrote:

Well, the argument against at the time was that free fees would just end up as a subsidy to the already-rich, and wouldn't help students from poorer backgrounds get into college. Which is exactly what happened, and our universities (particularly UCD and TCD) are jam-packed with people who are, quite frankly, morons - but morons with very rich parents who can pay for the grinds to get them through the Leaving to do an Arts "degree" in Greek Philosophy and Art History. It's a huge waste of resources on a societal level.

Instead, if the rich had to fork out a few grand a year then darling, but thick, little Clarissa might get married off early instead of sending her to waste 3 years in college, leaving a place free for Anto from de Mun (who should get free fees and the dole while studying).

Something like - parental income over €100K - 3K a year fees
parental income under €35K - free fees plus the dole
In the middle - free fees

Self-financing, more or less, increases social mobility, ensures we utilise the talents of all our people effectively, stops wasting resources "educating" thick rich kids. Sorted.

I fail to see your point of how this makes UCD a better university.

maxi-twist

Dalfiatach wrote:

Instead, if the rich had to fork out a few grand a year then darling, but thick, little Clarissa might get married off early instead of sending her to waste 3 years in college,

Do you live in the middle ages? Women dont get married off anymore. Especially not rich kids.

McGinty

Dalfiatach, hi as noble as your comments are, I have to say I am a little confused because there is help for people on low incomes to go to college if they want. I happen to be one of them, and whilst I am no supporter of fianna fail, I do feel I get great help to go through college. If anyone wants to they can go to college. If you are under a certain level of income you get a grant, pure and simple. If you are like myself you also get the back to education allowance (via the social welfare) plus a book grant of €400 a year. Who do you feel is disadvantaged against? Is it the people who are just over the grant level threshold, where is the cut off between disadvantaged and advantaged? There are opportunities for those who are poor (they have to get the points if they want to get in via the leaving cert, but that has nothing to do with economics, just dedication and hard work) or if that doesn't work they can go back as a mature student like I did. I do have a certain gripe against this widespread victim thinking, that is if someone is poor they have no chance, personally it is only a block if you let it. I raise my son alone and maybe others consider me disadvantaged, I don't I just see myself getting through college for a better life for both of us. When people see themselves as victims of society it prohibits them to go forward, they believe those barriers are real, but they are not. Maybe UCD is full of rich kids, personally I don't care, all I care about is getting on and doing well. I just wanted to offer you this perspective because whilst I feel your statements are well intentioned they maybe possibly a little misguided.

funky penguin

Dalfiatach wrote:

Well, the argument against at the time was that free fees would just end up as a subsidy to the already-rich, and wouldn't help students from poorer backgrounds get into college. Which is exactly what happened, and our universities (particularly UCD and TCD) are jam-packed with people who are, quite frankly, morons - but morons with very rich parents who can pay for the grinds to get them through the Leaving to do an Arts "degree" in Greek Philosophy and Art History. It's a huge waste of resources on a societal level.

Instead, if the rich had to fork out a few grand a year then darling, but thick, little Clarissa might get married off early instead of sending her to waste 3 years in college, leaving a place free for Anto from de Mun (who should get free fees and the dole while studying).

Something like - parental income over €100K - 3K a year fees
parental income under €35K - free fees plus the dole
In the middle - free fees

Self-financing, more or less, increases social mobility, ensures we utilise the talents of all our people effectively, stops wasting resources "educating" thick rich kids. Sorted

Our universities are packed with morons? Is this the result of some nationwide survey?

Regarding your Money = College argument, a "thick" person receiving grinds does not automatically get through the Leaving Cert. Besides, grinds will teach EXACTLY what was taught to a student in class. Any secondary teacher worth their salt will tell you this.

Furthermore, why is a three year stint in college a waste of time for "Clarissa"? Is it because she is in danger of learning something? Why shouldn't she have the chance to get a college education? God forbid she becomes a smart rich kid!

There are plenty of people who have mediocre Leaving Certs and go on to perform much better in college. The opposite is also true. My brother scored 500 points in the Leaving Cert and is extremely bright. However, he's having trouble coping with 1st year Engineering (his most recent exams were less than impressive). However, by your logic, he should be prime beef to spend resources on. Hopefully, this is just a case of teething problems.

A friend of mine (who is quite wealthy) did poorly in the Leaving Cert some years back. Despite this, he persevered, did a PLC, applied to college as a mature student and now has a GPA of 3.8. Again, by your above logic, he should have been shunned.

Sorted? No.

HappyCrackHead

Dalfiatach wrote:

Strawman arguments.

I never said all rich kids were thick, or all poor kids were smart. But clearly, our universities are disproportionately full of rich muppets because Daddy can afford to send them, whereas large numbers of talented, but poor, kids simply cannot afford to go to college. This is obviously not an optimal use of resources, nor is it good for our society in the long run. No human society in history has survived long-term if it calcifies into entrenched privilege and entrenched poverty. Increasing social mobility is in the interests of everyone...including the rich.

So, we need a mechanism whereby talented people from the bottom rungs have the means to better themselves. This can be paid for by stopping wasting resources on stupid people who happen to be rich getting an education at the taxpayers expense. Talented people who happen to be rich will, of course, continue to be educated.

It's about meritocracy. Creating a society where how far you can get in life depends on your innate talents, not Daddy's bank balance and golfing partners.

This is one of the most unequal societies in the developed world and getting worse, because we do not have proactive measures to increase social mobility. Keep this up for another generation or two, and we'll be ripe for social conflict and revolution. Such is the way of the world.

Take your high horse to the Vet... it needs to be put down.

lizzyvera

Disadvantaged students are disadvantaged from primary school and up. In my mam's school, some of the LC students have a reading age of 12 and most do no higher level subjects. If they don't go to college it's mostly because they won't be able for it or simply aren't interested in academics. On the other hand, plenty of people in that same school have gone on to college and got degrees. It's harder work for them because higher level subjects are often taught after school and often there are discipline problems that stop everyone learning, but with hard work they do get what they want.

Free third level education of a high standard for all is the reason we have such a good knowlede based economy. It's also the reason I don't resent paying a lot of tax. When my parents went to college there were fees and only one in seven got any kind of third level qualification.
People from disadvantaged backgrounds do get some financial aid, maybe they should get more, I don't know a lot about it (at least I'm not pretending to). Don't pinpoint the social differences in our society on free education- if anything it's the way out of it.

If you say "Why should I pay for your education- you're stupid" why not "Why should I pay for your hospital care- you smoke and don't eat veggies" and "Why should I pay for your house- you're lazy and unqualified".
I prefer free education, healthcare, social services for all.

lizzyvera

Pride Fighter wrote:

As for the guy saying it is full of D4 rich kids I would agree.

Honest to God would people stop stereotyping! D4 is a small area, UCD as 22,000 students- they are a minority. I haven't noticed any stereotypes or cliques forming in Science anyway. Everyone seems very laid back and genuine. There is that joke about Orts but I didn't find people in my Spanish class any different.

Anyway, if people happen to dress and talk a certain way then that's fine. It's not important and it is certainly not a measure of how stupid someone is. Actually, posh southside private school goers tend to be very driven and get the best LC results in the country. Nobody can spoon feed you the LC, you do have to sit down and learn the whole thing and it takes hours and hard work whether you have deadly notes or not.

And yes, there are rich people in college. There are going to be rich people in the biggest university in one of the richest countries in the world.