Tom Garvin's Irish Times rant about 3rd level

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

dyl10

El Siglo wrote: »

Experience.

Ah, I took you for 20 years younger

El Siglo

dyl10 wrote: »

Ah, I took you for 20 years younger

Fair enough.:pac:

parker kent

Plowman makes a lot of good points in relation to the replies to the article.

But in relation to this quote,

To break the culture of intellectual conformity – the belief that the professor holds the key to all knowledge – we are encouraging more active student engagement. So today’s first year English students may find themselves working in a group to devise a marketing plan for Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre – an exercise that requires them to be knowledgeable about the London theatre in Shakespeare’s time: the plays, actors, and wider culture.

I wouldn't mind this type of thing so long as it keeps the actual literature in mind. Plenty of people I did English with had little to no knowledge of the context much of the literature was written. This is not their fault in some cases as it is difficult for many 18-year-olds to have deep knowledge about every era. I think this sort of exercise might prove useful as long as it is carefully used. So long as they don't get bogged down in the specifics of a marketing plan, it should be fine. Being knowledgeable about the plays, actors and culture is not a bad thing for understanding literature.

Anyway....any abstract thinking that gets them to remember this is OK. Overall Horizons doesn't fill me with warm, fuzzy feelings but I wish I had the chance to do this during my undergrad. It might have made some of the tutorials in 1st year a little bit more memorable! I just hope that they are using it to add to the literature, not take away from it and produce mindless drones that know about marketing plans.

cue

Damian Duffy wrote: »

I'm doing a PhD in UCD and sometimes that requires giving tutorials to undergrads and asking them for input to a question is torture, they just don't want to know. It's give me the answers, I will learn them and then I will spew them back at exam time.

I have to say that sitting in tutorials like that has been the most disappointing of my university experience so far. The students do not open up and some of the tutors seem to have no experience of stimulating discussion in a group environment. It is very frustrating for both parties.

Mushy

cue wrote: »

I have to say that sitting in tutorials like that has been the most disappointing of my university experience so far. The students do not open up and some of the tutors seem to have no experience of stimulating discussion in a group environment. It is very frustrating for both parties.

In my experience I'm just a tad too shy to always speak up. Just takes some time. Depends on tutor though.

Mardy Bum

parker kent wrote: »

Plowman makes a lot of good points in relation to the replies to the article.

But in relation to this quote,



I wouldn't mind this type of thing so long as it keeps the actual literature in mind. Plenty of people I did English with had little to no knowledge of the context much of the literature was written. This is not their fault in some cases as it is difficult for many 18-year-olds to have deep knowledge about every era. I think this sort of exercise might prove useful as long as it is carefully used. So long as they don't get bogged down in the specifics of a marketing plan, it should be fine. Being knowledgeable about the plays, actors and culture is not a bad thing for understanding literature.

This is a major part of English Literature almost all of it.
There is modules purely called Literature in Context and in every other module context is a major part.
What is literature if it is not in context?:confused

I did the module which had the marketing plan as one of the components. The marketing plan had very little to do with the assignment. The aim of it was to get a greater understanding of the context of the literature as well as the literature itself. The module was in fact called literature in context.

dan_d

Interesting thread.
I graduated from UCD in 05. My exams were all 3 hour blocks, 100% jobs. My sister on the other hand is in the final year in UCD, and I can honestly say, although she works hard, the new system appears a bit - stupid!
Firstly I think this is the first year she's ever had either a 3 hour exam, or an exam that is worth 100%. Consequently, she's terrified! She always has at least 10% going into an exam, and all along her exams haven't been more than 2 hours. Secondly she's struggled to fit the Horizons thing into her timetable all along....sounds like a great idea in theory but in practice it's abit different. She has quite a lot of hours and labs, and still has to do Horizons, but she has to fit the extra classes into her lunch hour or late in the evening. This severely limits what's available to her, and frequently she ends up doing classes she has zero interest in and won'ts benefit her at all, but has to do to tick a box.There is no continuity from year to year, becuase of the limited times available to her.
A small point would be that most of her exams through the last 4 years have been at either 4pm or 7pm at night, in blackrock. I have serious doubts that anyone is at their best for exams at that time of day. It's wrangling in order to make a poor system function.
While the continuous assessment is probably a good idea for some people (I don't buy into it) it just appears to me that the college is dumbing itself down even further. Hugh Brady was installed as president during my years there, and suddenly we began to hear all these Americanisms...."credits" "GPA" & "semesterisation" were being bandied around a lot.It was very noticeable. I think back to my course (engineering including a 5month work placement, which was an extremely valuable part of the course), and wonder how in God's name they can possibly have changed the course to fit the new system yet maintain the same standard. I find it very hard to believe it can be done.
Although I also don't buy into Tom Garvin's rant, I do believe that Hugh Brady was a mistake. He spent a lot of time in the states and brought back an idea that he was going to change UCD, make it more like the American system. I know the US has some excellent colleges, but overall their system is streets apart from ours (in good and bad ways), and should be left like that. Change was certainly needed, but not in that manner. Tom Garvin's rant should be taken against the backdrop that the majority of the college staff were very reluctant to back Hugh Brady's changes - VERY reluctant.
As parker kent says, interactive learning exercises are all very well, as long as the actual object of the exercise (such as Shakespeares play) is kept in mind. I do think that at some point people have to accept that they do have to spend a period of time sitting down either listening or learning off. New thinkers on education seem to think that enlightened learning comes through have kids and students clicking on keyboards all day, doing "web based" activities and interacting with everything except the topic at hand. While these things are probably helpful, at some point you've got to sit down and learn the stuff...which is a fact I think gets overlooked.
Conclusions?? Change is great, but in the wrong hands, is lethal!

ChocolateSauce

I agree with Nick Tom Garvin.

It's nice to hear someone actually demand that education be recognised for what it is: Nothing less than the liberation from the shackles of ignorance.

The modular system has dumbed down exams tremendously, something the head of the Chemistry department and others have let us know in spades. We were given past exams from 1983 for the subject I did on Saturday, and it was much harder than it is today.

parker kent

Mardy Bum wrote: »

This is a major part of English Literature almost all of it.
There is modules purely called Literature in Context and in every other module context is a major part.
What is literature if it is not in context?:confused

I did the module which had the marketing plan as one of the components. The marketing plan had very little to do with the assignment. The aim of it was to get a greater understanding of the context of the literature as well as the literature itself. The module was in fact called literature in context.

Yes you are repeating my point. I'm saying that due to the changes in UCD under horizons, modules like you mention are available. I was defending the existence of modules like the one you describe. I'm comparing when I did 1st year in 2004 (where we had very little context, just more along the lines of here is the text: read it!) and to now.

Edit: What is literature when it is not in context? Try being in our class in 2004 when we sat down and started discussing Edna St Vincent Millay despite not being told: who she was, what century she lived in, basically told nothing at all other than the words on the page and the notion that we were doing poetry. Some people would have known the answers to these questions due to reading about them in their study leading up to the first tutorial, but many didn't and I'm sure they were lost.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

parker kent

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I get that (I did get a 1st!) but I think that 1st year needs to be an introductory year to all elements relating to literature. We had 1 and a half lectures on critical theories in 1st year, that was just not enough. Hopefully they have a module now that explains theories in semester 1 in first year. They needed to change the balance and understand that there were 18-year-olds in there with gaps in their knowledge. I think the current approach is trying to make up for gaps that existed and produce more rounded students. Then in 2nd and 3rd year, students should be able produce better results/discussions. I think that is what they should be aiming for across all courses, producing rounded graduates who have received a rounded education.

bnt

I've been at UCD for three years now, but as a mature student with 20 years of work experience before that. I want to make one particular point about exams, which I think is being missed here: they are unrealistic. They do not test the skills that you will require once you get out in to the world and do actual work.

You will be judged on the work you produce, and the problems you solve, and the time in which you do it. You are not judged on the amount of stuff you have crammed in to your head at any one time: there will be too much information for you to memorise. You will be expected to produce quality work, using all the resources that are available to you. If a computer is quickest (which it usually is), you use a computer. Using a book or the Internet is not "cheating" in itself: there is no "cheating" if you can deliver the right results on time. (You do have to give credit where credit is due, of course.)

You are not judged on your ability to hand-write solutions to problems, on paper, within an arbitrary time limit. You will be expected to work effectively in collaboration with other people, some of whom may not be on the same continent. What use is hand-written paper in that context?

In short, I really don't understand why some folks think that harder exams for 100% of the course marks were somehow a better thing. You may be right that students come out of university "knowing" less - that is, they have crammed less bulk knowledge in to their heads - but I question whether that's such a bad thing, considering what employers need from people these days. So you might ask "who cares what employers want?": well, unless you plan to spend your life in Academia, getting a PHD, lecturing and doing research for the rest of your life - you need to care. For example, I've heard horror stories from employers about graduates in Computer Science who know all kinds of arcane concepts, but are unable to write actual programs to implement simple concepts.

That's just a small taster of a rant I could produce about 3rd Level. :eek:

PS: I'm not exaggerating about the handwriting part. In the 15 or so years before I started at UCD, I hardly wrote more than a couple of sentences on paper. If I did a hand sketch, it was only as a prelude to doing a professional illustration on computer. You can imagine what that did to my handwriting, and I pity the poor examiners who have to mark my papers. :cool:

The Agogo

Being critical in University is on the decline. The main aggressors seem to be the academic teachers though!

In Week 5 of a Analysis & Composition Module for Music, I gave a very harsh and critical presentation on something that was ridiculous but which everyone else agreed with, just for the sake of convenience.

That teacher constantly berated me for being critical. Is that not what University is about though? Questioning everything; the search of genuine knowledge?

littlefriend

cue wrote: »

I have to say that sitting in tutorials like that has been the most disappointing of my university experience so far. The students do not open up and some of the tutors seem to have no experience of stimulating discussion in a group environment. It is very frustrating for both parties.

Could not agree with this more. Cringeworthy and more or less a waste of time

donaghs

I found Laffan & Mary Daly's rebuttal rather dull and politician-like. At least Garvin's piece was animated and entertaining. Apart from their bizarre "Apprentice" bit about the Globe Theatre, which was a tad "distant from the challenges we confront", as they would say in political-speak. Fintan O'Toole picked up on this recently:

"Studying Shakespeare is not like opening a Dundrum boutique"
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0515/1224270446769.html

dan_d

bnt wrote: »

I've been at UCD for three years now, but as a mature student with 20 years of work experience before that. I want to make one particular point about exams, which I think is being missed here: they are unrealistic. They do not test the skills that you will require once you get out in to the world and do actual work.

You will be judged on the work you produce, and the problems you solve, and the time in which you do it. You are not judged on the amount of stuff you have crammed in to your head at any one time: there will be too much information for you to memorise. You will be expected to produce quality work, using all the resources that are available to you. If a computer is quickest (which it usually is), you use a computer. Using a book or the Internet is not "cheating" in itself: there is no "cheating" if you can deliver the right results on time. (You do have to give credit where credit is due, of course.)

You are not judged on your ability to hand-write solutions to problems, on paper, within an arbitrary time limit. You will be expected to work effectively in collaboration with other people, some of whom may not be on the same continent. What use is hand-written paper in that context?

In short, I really don't understand why some folks think that harder exams for 100% of the course marks were somehow a better thing. You may be right that students come out of university "knowing" less - that is, they have crammed less bulk knowledge in to their heads - but I question whether that's such a bad thing, considering what employers need from people these days. So you might ask "who cares what employers want?": well, unless you plan to spend your life in Academia, getting a PHD, lecturing and doing research for the rest of your life - you need to care. For example, I've heard horror stories from employers about graduates in Computer Science who know all kinds of arcane concepts, but are unable to write actual programs to implement simple concepts.

That's just a small taster of a rant I could produce about 3rd Level. :eek:

PS: I'm not exaggerating about the handwriting part. In the 15 or so years before I started at UCD, I hardly wrote more than a couple of sentences on paper. If I did a hand sketch, it was only as a prelude to doing a professional illustration on computer. You can imagine what that did to my handwriting, and I pity the poor examiners who have to mark my papers. :cool:

Well that's okay, but you're still doing exams under the new system, so it's a bit of a moot point. Your argument is valid, but the other side of it is that you have to start somewhere. Not all jobs can be done by choosing a career at 18, walking in and starting "training" in an office/work environment. Regardless of how valid or otherwise the course work may be, many professions require a certain amount of knowledge.And there are those jobs out there that are supplied by Arts grads/general degrees.

I understand your argument, but I also remember that as a student we found mature students were annoying, because they always thought they knew better/more than the guy teaching and were never afraid to make it known. Don't be that person!!!!!!!;)