Quality of teaching in UCD (and probably most universities)

Seanchai

I enjoy my course in UCD. The lecturers are generally hugely knowledgeable and can direct me towards the correct books when I ask. Nevertheless, I largely enjoy it because I love the topic and I love studying on my own. In reality, I don't need to be taught most of the course as I can work it out myself but I do need people to contact when I'm stuck. I attend because 1) marks are given for attendance, and 2) I will get an idea of what the lecturer puts importance on and therefore what should be on the exam.

However, the distinct and abiding impression I get from them all is that lecturing is an inconvenience, a necessary part of their paid employment. I imagine most universities, being primarily research centres nowadays, have a similar set of priorities where teaching is at the very bottom.

At the moment we're doing a very difficult topic and I'm more conscious of the almost complete absence of structure, guidelines, course aims and targets on the part of the lecturer. I'll get on top of it eventually by reading up on my own but I'm just acutely conscious that the lecturer arrives in class unprepared, disorganised and with nothing printed and nothing to guide us on Blackboard or elsewhere. The lecturer is sound personality wise, but consistently disorganised and unprepared - a lesson in how not to teach. This is a very well established lecturer who has international expertise in his area, but has never been taught how to teach. I find this shocking, and the priorities of UCD are to blame largely. More shocking, however, it that this is the norm. Usually, the lecturer is self-absorbed (understandably) in his narrow area of expertise but as a result unacceptably lacks empathy with his/her students in his/her role as a lecturer. Empathy, a sense of how students see things, a sense of how alien the subject can be, is essential to be a good teacher.

Often, our 'lecturer' is some postgrad student who is untrained in teaching and paid cheaply - accordingly, he/she is structureless and chaotic and winging it, as no doubt senior members of the department told them in order to offload the relevant classes on to them while they continue researching with the vague promise of greater things to the young postgrad. That exchange is very much how things operate here when it comes to the quality of teaching, and it's definitely not unique to UCD lecturers.

In a nutshell, for all the changes UCD has made, it still has not taken seriously the need to make teachers out of the researchers which it recruits. UCD simply gives teaching jobs to researchers and calls these people "lecturers", and the student paying fees to UCD for an education gets the untrained result as his/her teacher.

---

Is there any hope that UCD can begin putting a serious emphasis on raising the quality of teaching here?

Huckster

Welcome to self-directed learning

beardedmaster

How could you make such a broad statement about UCD in general, while you only have experience in your own area(s) of learning?

I think my lecturers are very good, on the whole. They clearly emphasise that they hope they are understood and will go back over something if necessary. They all have lecture notes on Blackboard of course, and have lectures prepared, etc. Some of them take the teaching aspect of their jobs fairly seriously, particularly the ones who don't do as much research anymore and are more on programme boards, school committees, etc.

kkumk

I couldn't speak highly enough of my lecturers. They're always available for a quick chat, for example last year when I was freaking out about my undergraduate dissertation, 5 or 6 of them were on hand to reassure me and encourage me and give me advice, even though an undergrad dissertation probably seems like nothing to them and for many of them it wasn't even related to their specific field. I was actually surprised at how many the UCD lecturers seem to care about teaching and undergrads given what the general stereotype is.

EmacB

Its really down to luck. I've had few fantastic lecturers who were really enthusiastic and good at teaching. Others have been terribly dis-organised and poor at communicating.

[Jackass]

Seanchai wrote: »

At the moment we're doing a very difficult topic and I'm more conscious of the almost complete absence of structure, guidelines, course aims and targets on the part of the lecturer. I'll get on top of it eventually by reading up on my own but I'm just acutely conscious that the lecturer arrives in class unprepared, disorganised and with nothing printed and nothing to guide us on Blackboard or elsewhere. The lecturer is sound personality wise, but consistently disorganised and unprepared - a lesson in how not to teach. This is a very well established lecturer who has international expertise in his area, but has never been taught how to teach.

I'm pretty sure I know exactly who you're talking about. He's internationally acclaimed and can be found on certain Irish tv programmers and in newspapers and on youtube etc.... Given his reputation, I was absolutely amazed at how utterly terrible he is as a lecturer. Obviously he's one of the most knowledgeable people in the country in his area, but lectures to him are an annoying break away from what he's doing to talk for a bit. I sometimes wonder if he knows what is on the course list ... no slides and nothing on blackboard and just talks sh*t for an hour, but there's very little you can take away from his lectures or learn...you do need to just go off and learn it yourself.

If I'm not thinking of the same guy, then that just makes it even worse I suppose.

I've found the teaching in UCD for the most part to vary greatly, I've had a couple of extremely good lecturers, but unfortunately, I think it's fair to say for every good lecturer I get, I have about 2 to 3 very bad ones. I've actually made a formal complaint to UCD about one of my lecturers last semester, as she was beyond terrible, I believe half the class complained about her, but not only could she not teach and I had to learn everything on my own, it was a disadvantage to go to her lectures, but it was a technical subject, so accuracy is crucial, but she would mess up examples and back track (very annoying when taking notes and learning the wrong way as your taking them), she would make mistakes explaining things and not realise it and not correct herself, she gave a sample paper with solutions prior to the exam, she got the fu*king solutions wrong on the sample paper, I called in to her and told her, and she just goes "uh yeah, sorry you're right" but never sent an email out to anybody to let them know or anything...then she said the exam would be in the same format as the sample paper (why wouldn't it be??), and on the day of the exam gave us a completely different format on exam paper, entirely different to the last 15 past papers on blackboard..... insane... :mad:

Anyway, I agree with pretty much everything you say OP. If I was to rate the teaching in UCD, over all I would give it a "Poor" - only for the one or two brilliant lecturers I've had, I would actually rate it as very poor to appalling.

fatedtopretend

Seanchai wrote: »

I'm just acutely conscious that the lecturer arrives in class unprepared, disorganised and with nothing printed and nothing to guide us on Blackboard or elsewhere. The lecturer is sound personality wise, but consistently disorganised and unprepared - a lesson in how not to teach. This is a very well established lecturer who has international expertise in his area, but has never been taught how to teach. I find this shocking, and the priorities of UCD are to blame largely. More shocking, however, it that this is the norm. Usually, the lecturer is self-absorbed (understandably) in his narrow area of expertise but as a result unacceptably lacks empathy with his/her students in his/her role as a lecturer. Empathy, a sense of how students see things, a sense of how alien the subject can be, is essential to be a good teacher.


In a nutshell, for all the changes UCD has made, it still has not taken seriously the need to make teachers out of the researchers which it recruits. UCD simply gives teaching jobs to researchers and calls these people "lecturers", and the student paying fees to UCD for an education gets the untrained result as his/her teacher.

---

Is there any hope that UCD can begin putting a serious emphasis on raising the quality of teaching here?

I partially agree with you. I'm pretty sure I know who you are talking about. It is extremely difficult when there is no preparation on the part of the lecturer - they just assume you to be able to absorb the content of the class.
We had a particular case where students were falling behind at the expense of the teaching method used by a certain lecturer. The class ended up coming together to air our grievances.
There were various meetings set up and the lecturer began to put slides up. Not much else changed.

Although I have had some fantastic lecturers I do think there is a need to improve teaching standards.
End of Semester module surveys are obviously not working.

Mardy Bum

Some of the economics tutors in UCD in my time struggled with the language never mind teaching.

[Jackass]

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Some of the economics tutors in UCD in my time struggled with the language never mind teaching.

Don't worry, they've fixed that now.

Now they just completely dropped all tutorials for Economics and they have a student doing a PHD in English or History or something running a maths support centre thats open 2 hours a week and the lecturers are the ones who can't speak English. (one of them at least)

hames

Before I ever came to UCD I was warned about the subject of the thread. This was in 2004, around the time when the current President assumed his office, and the nature of the university began to change toward a heavily research intensive institution.

The person who warned me about this was an old school lecturer I was acquainted with when filling out my CAO form, and he stayed on in UCD until last year on apart time basis. Interestingly enough, he was a world expert in his field and the author of a well received text book, but he is clearly very disillusioned at the way the University is managed and the way teaching is widely regarded as being of secondary importance to lucrative research opportunities.

I suppose it's part of the rising tide lifting all boats philosophy: attract quality research and you'll also attract academic prestige, better academics and better students. Except, for the main part, Irish Universities are under huge financial pressure, have restrictions on the salaries they can offer, and now have very limited scope for undertaking quality research due to wider financial pressures.

So we have a University which places a huge importance on research over teaching, itself capable of churning out what is often only very mediocre research tidbits, with a depressingly poor focus on teaching undergraduates.

Yes, this is a problem, and the magnitude of the problem has only become apparent in the post-boom period as funding has dried up and quality of teaching has often remained poor.

I can't speak for all faculties and schools, but the OP's experience has certainly been my experience; my background in UCD would be in life sciences.

Mardy Bum

[Jackass] wrote: »

Don't worry, they've fixed that now.

Now they just completely dropped all tutorials for Economics and they have a student doing a PHD in English or History or something running a maths support centre thats open 2 hours a week and the lecturers are the ones who can't speak English. (one of them at least)

Funnily enough I'm pretty sure of the lecturer you are talking about. I think she taught intermediate micro in my time. Great to hear the school is going from strength to strength it was probably the worst school, including admin staff, to deal with during my time there and other colleges.

Miss Lockhart

I don't think you can generalise for the whole university. What goes on in terms of teaching, standards, administration etc can be so different between courses within the same faculty, let alone courses across different colleges and schools.

The quality of teaching I experienced in UCD was excellent, with literally one notable exception out of dozens of staff. This is in stark contrast to my experience with other universities.

Ilyana 2.0

Like anything in life, I've experienced some good and some bad teaching in UCD. My course involves little 'teaching' on the lecturers' part; their function is more about imparting information than explaining concepts or formulae etc.

The common factor among all the lecturers I've had so far is intelligence; they all undoubtedly know their stuff. It's their ability to give us the information in an engaging way that varies.

My favourite lecturers are ones that have a sense of humour and can engage people's attention but not at the expense of the syllabus; I've had maybe five or six of these lecturers. Some aren't very interesting but they're still entirely competent. I've had perhaps three lecturers who were incomprehensible, dull, arrogant, or some combination of the three.

It's been a mixed bag so far, mostly positive. UCD should invest in research, but the lecturers ought to understand that research isn't their only important function in UCD.

El Siglo

Seanchai wrote: »

I enjoy my course in UCD. The lecturers are generally hugely knowledgeable and can direct me towards the correct books when I ask. Nevertheless, I largely enjoy it because I love the topic and I love studying on my own. In reality, I don't need to be taught most of the course as I can work it out myself but I do need people to contact when I'm stuck. I attend because 1) marks are given for attendance, and 2) I will get an idea of what the lecturer puts importance on and therefore what should be on the exam.

Fair enough.

However, the distinct and abiding impression I get from them all is that lecturing is an inconvenience, a necessary part of their paid employment. I imagine most universities, being primarily research centres nowadays, have a similar set of priorities where teaching is at the very bottom.

The entire position of a lecturer, any kind of job security is dictated by their respective abilities to publish and that's why they are there. It's not to feck students over, it's because grant applications and in effect jobs for postdocs and postgrads are dependent upon outside funding (SFI, IRC, NERC, AHRC, Marie Curie etc...). So they need a track record of research and publications are the name of the game. Also, it's entirely pushed by the universities. UCD, TCD, DCU, UCC, NUIG, NUIM, QUB, UU etc... all push the same agenda: publish, publish, publish.

At the moment we're doing a very difficult topic and I'm more conscious of the almost complete absence of structure, guidelines, course aims and targets on the part of the lecturer. I'll get on top of it eventually by reading up on my own but I'm just acutely conscious that the lecturer arrives in class unprepared, disorganised and with nothing printed and nothing to guide us on Blackboard or elsewhere. The lecturer is sound personality wise, but consistently disorganised and unprepared - a lesson in how not to teach. This is a very well established lecturer who has international expertise in his area, but has never been taught how to teach. I find this shocking, and the priorities of UCD are to blame largely. More shocking, however, it that this is the norm. Usually, the lecturer is self-absorbed (understandably) in his narrow area of expertise but as a result unacceptably lacks empathy with his/her students in his/her role as a lecturer. Empathy, a sense of how students see things, a sense of how alien the subject can be, is essential to be a good teacher.

Chances are the lecturer is under a lot of pressure and right now it's the season of grant applications. Those big block grants that come out from NERC or the EU and to be honest they're a pain in the balls to work on and with something like a 10-15% success rate, they're worth working on. Also, you're the student, it's your job to study the lecturer just guides the topic. They do lack empathy for students, but in fairness why should they empathise with you on something you've signed up for? I mean, they're not teachers, they don't spoon feed. It's not up to them to engage you, just convey the material and the rest is up to you. It's not perfect but it could be a lot worse. I know in Penn State University, they have to give freshman lectures in geology in the football stadium because there's something like 3,000 students registered and they have to lecture them somewhere.

Often, our 'lecturer' is some postgrad student who is untrained in teaching and paid cheaply - accordingly, he/she is structureless and chaotic and winging it, as no doubt senior members of the department told them in order to offload the relevant classes on to them while they continue researching with the vague promise of greater things to the young postgrad. That exchange is very much how things operate here when it comes to the quality of teaching, and it's definitely not unique to UCD lecturers.

Often your postgrad students has worked his or her respective balls off to teach you the material and a little fucking gratitude would be nice once in a while. We don't wing it (especially for what little pay we get and our reputation of being reliable and good at tutoring etc... is dependent upon us not fucking up all the time) and when you're being taught by a postgrad just remember, we were in your position not long before so we know what's difficult and what's easy and what the module coordinator expects. Also, as a postgrad we need the practical experience. It's as much training for us as it is for you. If we're very lucky there might be a moderately funded postdoc in it but for the most part any job will do. So getting the experience helps us and in spite of what you might think, a lot of postgrads will do a hell of a better job than some institutionalised old crone who's waiting to retire.

In a nutshell, for all the changes UCD has made, it still has not taken seriously the need to make teachers out of the researchers which it recruits. UCD simply gives teaching jobs to researchers and calls these people "lecturers", and the student paying fees to UCD for an education gets the untrained result as his/her teacher.

---

Is there any hope that UCD can begin putting a serious emphasis on raising the quality of teaching here?

In a nutshell that's ridiculous. At the moment in the UK, there's this postgrad diploma in higher education teaching as it's required for all new lecturing staff (probably the biggest waste of money and time, but that's New Labour for you). Lecturers do know their stuff and for the most part spend a lot of time working on the lectures they give, which to be frank have absolutely no real bearing on their jobs (research is 90%, but that's not their fault). What you're describing is going back to the 1980s style academic; great lecturers, even better lectures, very detailed, tough exams, but absolutely no research output. Problem with that is that no research output means no money into department, no money means poor lab/computer facilities and this doesn't help when the government is butchering expenditure from nearly every department. If you want good teaching, you're going to change how teaching is considered by the those who control the purse strings. Firstly, that teaching should matter to ones' progression and promotion as a lecturer (believe it or not it only matters when you want to become a professor, you can literally go from; lecturer, senior lecturer and reader having done little or no teaching). Also if teaching were to matter to REF (Research Exercise Framework) and the funding bodies (i.e. teaching could make up say 25% of a grant proposal and REF take it into account for the same percentage) then you might have a better systems. However, I doubt this would ever happen and even it did it would take a decade or more to institute such a drastic shake-up.

I think the fact is that if there were no marks for attendance, and there was never to be any account of attendance made by any lecturer, and the slides were to be put online - that there would be a massive drop in attendance but grades would stay exactly the same.

A lot of teaching seems to be based on forcing attendance, giving out tips during class to make sure people bother coming, refusing to put notes on blackboard etc. What can this possibly mean, other than the lecturer in question feels that nobody will come to his or her class to simply listen to them, without the use of bribes or threats.

Why is this? I would imagine that the rise of the internet, and an access to a before-unimaginable amount of information, has deeply lessened the role of the traditional educators as the ultimate gatekeepers of knowledge.

POSSY

Fact of the matter is teaching constitutes about 10% of the job your lecturer was employed to do. Furthermore, as one of those "untrained" tutors who teach (for no thanks, for little pay and at the expense of a days research in some cases), maybe your tutorial/lecturer would be more informative for you if you bothered to read the relevant material or try the tutorial questions before arriving and expecting me to spoon feed/ inject the answers into you! That may sound like a broad generalisation but so is the OP. If you want little research output and a huge focus on teaching then go to an IT. If you want to be taught by the best in the relevant field of research and show some enthusiasm/work ethic come to a uni.

[Jackass]

Yeah, I had a job where 10% of it involved dealing with customer queries.

To be honest, if the customers (who pay my wages) read the material sent to them, they wouldn't have to bother me with their queries. I've better things to do in my job than to deal with this sh*t, so I do it half arsed.

I mean, just because it's part of my job description, and I need to do it to further my career and get paid, why should I spend my time worrying about 10% of my responsibilities? I could be doing the other parts of my job. I'm not good at giving customers advice, not trained in it, but they should be grateful I even show up.

And as for the ones who do do all the work and reading in their own time, well it doesn't bother me that I can't do my job and be helpful, because most of them probably don't and should have gone to a different company anyway.

Seanchai

El Siglo wrote: »

It's not perfect but it could be a lot worse. I know in Penn State University, they have to give freshman lectures in geology in the football stadium because there's something like 3,000 students registered and they have to lecture them somewhere.

As I said, I suspect this is the norm across the university sector. I'm aware of the current reality. By no means does it make it right or acceptable.

El Siglo wrote: »

The entire position of a lecturer, any kind of job security is dictated by their respective abilities to publish and that's why they are there. It's not to feck students over, it's because grant applications and in effect jobs for postdocs and postgrads are dependent upon outside funding (SFI, IRC, NERC, AHRC, Marie Curie etc...). So they need a track record of research and publications are the name of the game. Also, it's entirely pushed by the universities. UCD, TCD, DCU, UCC, NUIG, NUIM, QUB, UU etc... all push the same agenda: publish, publish, publish.

I'm aware of all of this, as the parenthesis in the thread title indicates and as a comment in the op expands upon: 'I imagine most universities, being primarily research centres nowadays, have a similar set of priorities where teaching is at the very bottom.'

Seanchai

El Siglo wrote: »

Chances are the lecturer is under a lot of pressure and right now it's the season of grant applications.

Chances are thousands of students have paid UCD fees to be taught about a topic - "tuition fees" I believe they're still called. As such, it really is not their concern that the lecturer in question cannot find a balance between his research responsibilities and his teaching responsibilities.

He has a duty to teach the subject as required in his contract, and UCD has a duty to both give him the necessary time for that and to supply the students who pay for a service which they advertise. Otherwise, UCD is at least in breach of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980.

But, and this is where both UCD and the lecturer get off, UCD does not promise a standard of teaching. It vaguely promotes the Diploma in University Teaching and Learning (UTL) but in practice this qualification is seen as something to add to the cv rather than as something to help create a new culture of teaching in the university (just as is the equivalent qualification that you mention in the UK). In reality, it's a certificate in lip-service to an ideal of teaching. The cultural change has not happened.

El Siglo wrote: »

Those big block grants that come out from NERC or the EU and to be honest they're a pain in the balls to work on and with something like a 10-15% success rate, they're worth working on.

I'm acutely conscious of this rather tangential point. It's still not my concern. My concern is that I paid for a standard of teaching which does not exist. UCD's "reputation" as a research university is of little concern to me.

Seanchai

El Siglo wrote: »

Often your postgrad students has worked his or her respective balls off to teach you the material and a little fucking gratitude would be nice once in a while.

This is written like a postgrad student who is teaching being exploited by a department lecturer to give his classes with the promise of a post doc/more funding/a better reference and even eventually a career as a real, paid academic. If somebody is not teaching, why do they deserve gratitude from students who pay for that service? The postgrad's issue is patently with the fact that he/she is being exploited by the university, just as it is the student's issue. Why, therefore, should the postgrad expect gratitude from the student just because the postgrad is in a bind?

The sense of entitlement by the postgrad from the student is, with all due respect, misplaced.

Seanchai

El Siglo wrote: »

They do lack empathy for students, but in fairness why should they empathise with you on something you've signed up for?

Empathy is a sign of intelligence. It is also smart, and it is also extremely helpful in becoming successful. To be a good teacher it is essential to know your audience, address their concerns and to help them deliver results for both themselves and the university.

That you are oblivious to its importance for anybody who feigns to teach students is worrying. Robert S. McNamara's reflection on the importance of empathy in the documentary Fog of War should enlighten.

El Siglo wrote: »

when you're being taught by a postgrad just remember, we were in your position not long before so we know what's difficult and what's easy and what the module coordinator expects.

Is this plea for empathy from the student for the "lecturer" from the same poster who a moment ago was talking about how the "lecturer" does not need to empathise with the student?

Seanchai

El Siglo wrote: »

Also, as a postgrad we need the practical experience. It's as much training for us as it is for you.

Once again, this is not the fee-paying student's problem. Everything you're saying here revolves around the needs of the postgrad/"lecturer". The point made in the op was that the lecturers are frequently so poor in terms of structure or outline that there is little/no "training" for the students other than in how not to teach a university course.

El Siglo wrote: »

What you're describing is going back to the 1980s style academic; great lecturers, even better lectures, very detailed, tough exams, but absolutely no research output.

Because the people in question are incapable of giving good, clear, succinct lectures and also of being good, efficient researchers? Really? How limited are they if they cannot spend a day of their lives creating PowerPoint slides etc, lesson structures and drawing up teaching aims for the year? Furthermore, they would probably be able to use the same PowerPoint slides etc in subsequent classes for years to come. The time required to put a coherent structure to the course is not much but that get away without doing even this because there is no universal standard in teaching/in course quality/in course delivery upheld and guaranteed across the university.

El Siglo wrote: »

Problem with that is that no research output means no money into department, no money means poor lab/computer facilities and this doesn't help when the government is butchering expenditure from nearly every department.

Once again, this is the problem of the universities in question. The fact remains that these universities which place teaching at the bottom of their priorities receive enormous sums of money in tuition fees from students who expect a certain standard.

That standard is not being delivered. And there's no sign of an impending culture change in universities. But "tuition fees", not "research fees" mind you, continue to increase.

El Siglo wrote: »

If you want good teaching, you're going to change how teaching is considered by the those who control the purse strings.

Exactly. It is clear that UCD/QUB/university governance is the problem. It is also clear that the loser is often the student who pays tuition fees for courses in universities where there is no uniform standard in teaching.

Seanchai

El Siglo wrote: »

Also, you're the student, it's your job to study the lecturer just guides the topic.

And if you had read the op you would have found the following: 'I'm more conscious of the almost complete absence of structure, guidelines, course aims and targets on the part of the lecturer.'

El Siglo wrote: »

I mean, they're not teachers, they don't spoon feed.

1) They are offering educational courses to students. In the old days people who used to give those courses were teachers.

2) Your concept of a teacher is distorted if you believe teaching is synonymous with spoon-feeding. Do some research on things like 'scaffolding' in education.

El Siglo wrote: »

It's not up to them to engage you, just convey the material and the rest is up to you.

This is where you're fundamentally wrong: if engaging were not part of their remit they would soon find nobody would choose to do their course unless it were essential to gain a qualification. The logical outcome of the third level world you're proposing is that all "lecturers" would be out of that job and students would stay at home and do their own research by looking at journals etc online. Of course, lecturers and UCD are aware of this which is why attendance at badly-taught lectures is compelled by awarding marks for it. In other words, by allocating marks to attendance UCD has cancelled out any stay-at-home objections to the poor teaching of courses. UCD lectures and lecturers are therefore "popular" and thus good: problem "solved".

Seanchai

POSSY wrote: »

Furthermore, as one of those "untrained" tutors who teach (for no thanks, for little pay and at the expense of a days research in some cases), maybe your tutorial/lecturer would be more informative for you if you bothered to read the relevant material or try the tutorial questions before arriving and expecting me to spoon feed/ inject the answers into you!

El Siglo wrote: »

We don't wing it (especially for what little pay we get and our reputation of being reliable and good at tutoring etc... is dependent upon us not fucking up all the time)

For starters, Possy, do you have a teaching qualification to teach your subject? If you are the norm, you don't and therefore are 'untrained' to teach the subject. What do you believe your "training" is? Even if you're doing a PhD in the subject you're lecturing on, you're only studying a tiny area of the subject whereas the course would be far less specialised. And that's before your teaching qualification comes into question.

At any rate, the lack of financial remuneration is not the student's problem. He/she has paid to be taught a course. The fact that the university, be it UCD or QUB, is allocating an untrained person the responsibility of teaching students is where the problem lies. They are cheap-skating it, and the student is the loser. Long-term, of course, the vast majority of said postgrads are the losers because they are delusional if they believe there will be a secure tenure-track permanent position in the university for them. The jobs aren't there, and when people then do the post-doc merry-go-round for years after they've finished their PhD is when it finally hits them. If the jobs are there, the Irish universities are going to recruit the student who has gone to the cutting-edge universities in the discipline (which are usually in the US) over a loyal department servant who did his/her PhD in Ireland.

PS: And yes, for the pay most postgraduate "lecturers" (tutors) are 'winging it', particularly after their first year when they have impressed the lecturer who passed the course off to them. After that they decide, correctly in my view, that for peanuts they will give monkey courses. And the lecturer, being grateful for the annoyance of that course being taken from him/her, will be so delighted that they'll write that excellent reference no matter how crap the postgrad is as a teacher. Loser: fee-paying students.

Seanchai

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I think the fact is that if there were no marks for attendance, and there was never to be any account of attendance made by any lecturer, and the slides were to be put online - that there would be a massive drop in attendance but grades would stay exactly the same.

A lot of teaching seems to be based on forcing attendance, giving out tips during class to make sure people bother coming, refusing to put notes on blackboard etc. What can this possibly mean, other than the lecturer in question feels that nobody will come to his or her class to simply listen to them, without the use of bribes or threats.

Why is this? I would imagine that the rise of the internet, and an access to a before-unimaginable amount of information, has deeply lessened the role of the traditional educators as the ultimate gatekeepers of knowledge.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of truth in this. Especially in this miserable weather when I could go upstairs, close the door and read up on all the required material in the time it takes me to go to UCD and back. I have had some brilliant lecturers in UCD, and some really interesting ones. The problem is there is not a uniform standard in teaching. There is still not an insistence that all course outlines and notes go on Blackboard. There is no deadline for all past papers being up on SIS. There is no IT cordination of all the required material for students being on SIS or whatever by a certain date to facilitate "learner autonomy". In my experience, many if not most lecturers seems hostile to engaging with technology in any aspect.

There are independent fiefdoms all over the university - as no doubt there are in all western universities - and the concept of a universal standard and quality in teaching has not penetrated these fiefdoms. That lack of consistency in teaching and structure is the problem. It is galling that people are trying to justify it and being personally offended at any questioning of this short-changing of fee-paying students by UCD.

Red Alert

What do you define by "course notes"? What happens if a lecturer chooses a different method of teaching, such as having you write down some information from the board, or summarise what they have said? Are you saying that you've lost the skill that my generation (late 20's) or my parent's generation had? Wake up! University is not just about being spoonfed powerpoint slides.

EDIT:
See what one of the world authorities on technical education had to say about this topic:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Columns/PowerPoint.pdf

POSSY

Seanchai wrote: »

For starters, Possy, do you have a teaching qualification to teach your subject? If you are the norm, you don't and therefore are 'untrained' to teach the subject. What do you believe your "training" is? Even if you're doing a PhD in the subject you're lecturing on, you're only studying a tiny area of the subject whereas the course would be far less specialised. And that's before your teaching qualification comes into question.

At any rate, the lack of financial remuneration is not the student's problem. He/she has paid to be taught a course. The fact that the university, be it UCD or QUB, is allocating an untrained person the responsibility of teaching students is where the problem lies. They are cheap-skating it, and the student is the loser. Long-term, of course, the vast majority of said postgrads are the losers because they are delusional if they believe there will be a secure tenure-track permanent position in the university for them. The jobs aren't there, and when people then do the post-doc merry-go-round for years after they've finished their PhD is when it finally hits them. If the jobs are there, the Irish universities are going to recruit the student who has gone to the cutting-edge universities in the discipline (which are usually in the US) over a loyal department servant who did his/her PhD in Ireland.

PS: And yes, for the pay most postgraduate "lecturers" (tutors) are 'winging it', particularly after their first year when they have impressed the lecturer who passed the course off to them. After that they decide, correctly in my view, that for peanuts they will give monkey courses. And the lecturer, being grateful for the annoyance of that course being taken from him/her, will be so delighted that they'll write that excellent reference no matter how crap the postgrad is as a teacher. Loser: fee-paying students.

Don't worry I'm aptly qualified to tutor. You'll also find that it is very rare for a lecturer to take tutorials anywhere. The general structure is to go like this:

1) Student's reads the relevant literature/textbook in prep. for a class.
2) The lecturer then discusses the topic with the class, and answers/elaborates on any points the students wish to make. The class is more theory-focused.
3) The lecturer makes a tutorial, which will generally be given by a PhD student that lecturer is supervising (and so in the same field), which will provide a more practical demonstration of the topic. The student is expected to have completed/attempted the tutorial before it is given.

That's how it's meant to work. Unfortunately, and as I said in my previous point I don't wish to generalise, the vast majority of students I've encountered/heard of do not fulfil steps one or three. Being honest I don't entirely blame them. The schooling system we have here is based on spoon feeding for exam purposes if we are being honest. I've seen this over numerous courses I've tutored ranging from 1st year Commerce to MSc Finance/Quant Finance. The students don't engage as they should and this is the student's problem.

I had one particular class (a first year Commerce course) who were an absolute nightmare. I'd prepare for the tutorial, which was at the expense of my own research (remember those no-good post-grads are students too). Attendance at lectures was maybe 20%, then maybe 60-70% would attend the tutorial. They wouldn't have prepared anything (the vast majority anyways). As a tutor, you'd go through the solutions (literally line by line) and ask "has anyone any questions? anything at all?" stuff like that, and nothing. Blank stares, they wouldn't ask anything. I remember one day I got through the solutions in maybe 20-25 mins, asked basically begged them for questions.... nothing. Let them go, got a call from the lecturer they had complained the tutorial didn't last long enough, funny thing was she couldn't stand the class either and referred to them as a nightmare compared to a similar class that was taking the course from a different faculty!

That's been my experience from tutoring 6 different modules over the past 3 years. However, on occasions there have been motivated, interested and hard working students and they are a pleasure to teach. And , of course, there have been students who struggle but try thier hardest and I think you'll find that the tutors/lecturers will do everything they can for them.

But this is university, it's not school and you, the students, have to try as well and fulfil your part of the agreement. Furthermore, your'e adults and this world really doesn't owe you anything and it is your degree and your future at the end of the day. If you really have trouble with something and it hasn't been completely sorted in the class or tutorial go up to the lecturer/tutor afterwards and I'm sure they'll help you.

I will accept that some people aren't good at lecturing/tutoring, but you also have to realise that an academics job is not to teach. As was pointed out to me by the Dean of a school (i.e. the boss!), when it comes to jobs/promotions everyone will say "I'm a great at lecturing" so no one even looks at that. It's publications and research that count. And the reason they count is because they are what are used to rank the university both here and abroad, and the rank of the university does have a bearing on you because the rank of the university is the rank of your degree. And if you want to study in Ireland and you don't care how people look at/ rank your degree then doing an alternative in an IT is probably your'e best option, but as it stands the job of academic staff is to conduct research, publish and (probably) most importantly bring in nice big SFI/ERC/Industry funding grants.

As far as the "your'e only studying a tiny part of the course" statement, as I said earlier it will often be that the tutor is the supervisor's PhD student and so working in the relevant area and trust me a PhD student in Physics/Maths/Finance (for example) will be well capable of tutoring in Physics/Maths/Finance. As I've said, lecturers here and abroad generally do not tutor.


And Finally! On the point of lecturer's promising PhD students glowing records in exchange for tutoring: This is honestly the first time I've heard of it happening. The students research/publications/work are what form the references. As I've said I have tutored multiple modules... I don't even bother putting them all on my CV/Linkedin, so trust me when I say they won't be part of my references.

I think I've addressed most of the issues you have. Not all lecturers are perfect, that's a given. But this isn't secondary school, your'e adults and you need to take responsibility as well, it's a two way street (to end with a cliche).

POSSY

Seanchai wrote: »

Chances are thousands of students have paid UCD fees to be taught about a topic - "tuition fees" I believe they're still called. As such, it really is not their concern that the lecturer in question cannot find a balance between his research responsibilities and his teaching responsibilities.

He has a duty to teach the subject as required in his contract, and UCD has a duty to both give him the necessary time for that and to supply the students who pay for a service which they advertise. Otherwise, UCD is at least in breach of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980.

But, and this is where both UCD and the lecturer get off, UCD does not promise a standard of teaching. It vaguely promotes the Diploma in University Teaching and Learning (UTL) but in practice this qualification is seen as something to add to the cv rather than as something to help create a new culture of teaching in the university (just as is the equivalent qualification that you mention in the UK). In reality, it's a certificate in lip-service to an ideal of teaching. The cultural change has not happened.

Also, as I said in my previous point: UCD's reputation is the reputation of your degree and third/fourth level education so it really should be of concern to you.



I'm acutely conscious of this rather tangential point. It's still not my concern. My concern is that I paid for a standard of teaching which does not exist. UCD's "reputation" as a research university is of little concern to me.

You also have a duty to engage with the course in a constructive manner, read the relevant material before attending lectures and attempting the tutorial questions ahead of time. Do you fulfil this obligation?

And since you brought the point up: Your'e lecturer has seen his salary reduced, his teaching load significantly increased and the time available to do research and raise grants diminished while being told that he will be evaluated on his publications/grants.

POSSY

Seanchai wrote: »

I attend because 1) marks are given for attendance, and 2) I will get an idea of what the lecturer puts importance on and therefore what should be on the exam.

Personally I am dead-set against giving marks for attendance. I think it's little more than grade inflation. And the second point sums up the issue many students face when adjusting from school to university. It's not meant to be "whats on the exam" orientated, nor is it meant to be spoon feeding.

Raphael

Seanchai wrote: »

As I said, I suspect this is the norm across the university sector. I'm aware of the current reality. By no means does it make it right or acceptable.

No, the fact that it's right and acceptable makes it right and acceptable. Just because it offends you, doesn't make it wrong. A University is a centre for higher thought and research. It happens to teach students, because that's a helpful way for a group of extremely intelligent people gathered together to give back to the community, a way to generate a new generation of intelligent, thinking minds, and, yes, a good source of income.

Universities are not schools, teaching undergrads is a byproduct. As far as any academic is concerned, teaching is just paying your dues - an unfortunate consequence of life and an annoyance to get through before getting back to work. If they were supposed to focus on teaching you, they'd be called teachers.

As someone said earlier, if you want a good teaching standard - go to an IT. Their staff ARE teachers, they're job is solely to teach you and thus they're better at it.

Mardy Bum

It seems people have taken personal offence to this thread. From what I understand of the OP he is saying that some staff are severely lacking in their teaching capacity. I don't think he is pointing the finger at all lecturers. The OP mentions one particularly lacklustre lecturer which I'm sure everyone has had.