Quality of teaching in UCD (and probably most universities)

POSSY

Mardy Bum wrote: »

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.

I'm not taking offence, and I don't think the other posters are. But what I am pointing out is that the OP should realise that teaching, and definitly not tutoring, is not a significant part of the lecturers job. I also want to point out that the way the student is meant to learn is vastly different than in school.

Edit: Plus, those criticising lecturers for not tutoring need to realise it is not thier job.

Mardy Bum

POSSY wrote: »

I'm not taking offence, and I don't think the other posters are. But what I am pointing out is that the OP should realise that teaching, and definitly not tutoring, is not a significant part of the lecturers job. I also want to point out that the way the student is meant to learn is vastly different than in school.

Edit: Plus, those criticising lecturers for not tutoring need to realise it is not thier job.

The OP said the course aims and outcomes were not very clear and also that the lecturer was disorganised and unprepared. This is just the basics of lecturing and has nothing to do with tutoring.

POSSY

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The OP said the course aims and outcomes were not very clear and also that the lecturer was disorganised and unprepared. This is just the basics of lecturing and has nothing to do with tutoring.

True but if you read the rest of the thread you'll see many people discussing lecturer's farming out tutorials.

Miss Lockhart

As I posted earlier, the standard of teaching I experienced in UCD was excellent. I fully understand that research is priority in the university but I am very grateful for the fact that my lecturers and tutors took their teaching role seriously, did the job well using best practice methodologies (far from spoon feeding), and did not treat their undergraduate students with the condescencion and derision evident from some of the posters on this thread.

This is a legitimate concern for students and a worthy topic of discussion.

It is a cop out to say that just because that's the way it is it must be accepted, or else go to an IT.

Thankfully not all faculties in UCD are so short-sighted.

Having since studied at top-notch universities abroad (UK and USA) I can say that this view of undergrads as a mere inconvenience is certainly not the norm.

POSSY

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

As I posted earlier, the standard of teaching I experienced in UCD was excellent. I fully understand that research is priority in the university but I am very grateful for the fact that my lecturers and tutors took their teaching role seriously, did the job well using best practice methodologies (far from spoon feeding), and did not treat their undergraduate students with the condescencion and derision evident from some of the posters on this thread.

This is a legitimate concern for students and a worthy topic of discussion.

It is a cop out to say that just because that's the way it is it must be accepted, or else go to an IT.

Thankfully not all faculties in UCD are so short-sighted.

No ones saying like it or lump it. What I am stating is that the teaching they are expecting (in many cases) is similar to that in schools which isn't realistic and I am also questioning is how much work the students put into their studies and how much better their learning experience would be if they engaged more.

Mardy Bum

POSSY wrote: »

True but if you read the rest of the thread you'll see many people discussing lecturer's farming out tutorials.

Tutorials are farmed out because that is the nature of university, I have no issue with that. However if the course coordinator has set the goals for each lecture properly it leaves it much easier for an already busy tutor who is underpaid to coordinate a lesson. The lecturers get paid a hefty sum of money for teaching so are accountable rather than the tutors.
In my time in UCD I only had one tutor who stood out as incompetent out of a large number. This was because he was unable to speak the language.

Miss Lockhart

POSSY wrote: »

No ones saying like it or lump it. What I am stating is that the teaching they are expecting (in many cases) is similar to that in schools which isn't realistic and I am also questioning is how much work the students put into their studies and how much better their learning experience would be if they engaged more.

Yes they are. Accept it or go to an IT is essentially like it or lump it, and it's a cop out.

I certainly never expected, nor got, teaching like that in schools. And whilst I agree that some students do not do their part in preparing for tutorials, that does not negate the fact that poor quality lecturing and tutoring is not acceptable. Again, it's a cop out.

POSSY

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Tutorials are farmed out because that is the nature of university, I have no issue with that. However if the course coordinator has set the goals for each lecture properly it leaves it much easier for an already busy tutor who is underpaid to coordinate a lesson. The lecturers get paid a hefty sum of money for teaching so are accountable rather than the tutors.
In my time in UCD I only had one tutor who stood out as incompetent out of a large number. This was because he was unable to speak the language.

Just on the point that lecturers are paid a hefty sum to teach, that's not really true. The vast bulk of thier pay, and getting promotions, is dependent on a) publications and b) getting research grants. And, I am in no way condoning a tutor who can't speak english.

POSSY

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Yes they are. Accept it or go to an IT is essentially like it or lump it, an it's a cop out.

I certainly never expected, nor got, teaching like that in schools. And whilst I agree that some students do not do their part in preparing for tutorials, that does not negate the fact that poor quality lecturing and tutoring is not acceptable. Again, it's a cop out.

I think this is just going to end up going around in circles at this stage.

Mardy Bum

POSSY wrote: »

Just on the point that lecturers are paid a hefty sum to teach, that's not really true. The vast bulk of thier pay, and getting promotions, is dependent on a) publications and b) getting research grants. And, I am in no way condoning a tutor who can't speak english.

I was just emphasising the "hefty" bit. Defending a lecturer's salary (I know the scale is pretty big but its still substantial at the lowest level), especially in UCD which has been handing out unapproved bonuses over the past few years, is not something I would see as defensible.

POSSY

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I was just emphasising the "hefty" bit. Defending a lecturer's salary (I know the scale is pretty big but its still substantial at the lowest level), especially in UCD which has been handing out unapproved bonuses over the past few years, is not something I would see as defensible.

Because in many cases the hefty salaries aren't all that hefty given the qualifications they possess and the substantial salaries they could earn in industry.

ucdperson

especially in UCD which has been handing out unapproved bonuses over the past few years, is not something I would see as defensible.

Bonuses went to people who neither teach nor research and who never meet students of any sort for the most part. Hardly relevant.

Disorganised lectures are not acceptable, but neither must lecturers spoon feed students.

Mardy Bum

POSSY wrote: »

Because in many cases the hefty salaries aren't all that hefty given the qualifications they possess and the substantial salaries they could earn in industry.

That depends on the area (lecturers in the various areas of humanities would not do so well, those in law are already working outside of UCD). Also if they were in industry the job would be a whole lot tougher and their pension as well as their position not as secure.

POSSY

Mardy Bum wrote: »

That depends on the area (lecturers in the various areas of humanities would not do so well, those in law are already working outside of UCD). Also if they were in industry the job would be a whole lot tougher and their pension as well as their position not as secure.

I was actually speaking from the perspective of Science/Business/Finance where substantially greater pay would await.

Mardy Bum

POSSY wrote: »

I was actually speaking from the perspective of Science/Business/Finance where substantially greater pay would await.

The security that a job in a university offers is very attractive along with the other benefits. Those options are open to them if they wish to venture into the private sector but they are not an excuse to forget about their teaching capacities in the public sector. Again I'm not saying this is endemic of all lecturers, indeed I'm only making an argument about the one mentioned in the OP.

POSSY

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The security that a job in a university offers is very attractive along with the other benefits. Those options are open to them if they wish to venture into the private sector but they are not an excuse to forget about their teaching capacities in the public sector. Again I'm not saying this is endemic of all lecturers, indeed I'm only making an argument about the one mentioned in the OP.

Agreed, and students should also be aware that teaching accounts for a small proportion of a lecturers duties and responsibilities. They should also note that the research and reputation of the university does have a bearing on thier degree.

Seanchai

POSSY wrote: »

Don't worry I'm aptly qualified to tutor.

In other words, you have a teaching qualification? If so, that must make you among a very, very small group. Seriously: well done.

Alternatively, perhaps "aptly qualified to tutor" translates as "I've just started a Masters and the department gave me tutoring responsibilities for a few classes a week, paying me a pittance but it looks good on the cv"

The latter was precisely the standard "qualification" one needed to be a tutor not so very long ago in UCD.

POSSY wrote: »

But this is university, it's not school and you, the students, have to try as well and fulfil your part of the agreement.

I don't believe anybody here is saying or implying otherwise. Why invent this red herring? What is, however, being said is that the absence of quality control in teaching across UCD is leading to enormous variations in the quality of teaching here and that, as a consequence, there are many lecturers not even providing basic course outlines or course structures so that students can engage in learner autonomy. (Curiously, an appeal for "learner autonomy" to be facilitated by UCD "lecturers" has been translated into an appeal to be "spoonfed" by defenders of the status quo in UCD. Such is the dishonesty here.)

Accordingly, UCD is not fulfilling its obligation to provide quality teaching and consistency in teaching standards for the millions of euro which it is being paid each year in 'Tuition fees' from students. That is the problem, and why people persist in denying it is an issue and being personally offended by this fleecing of students being highlighted is baffling.

POSSY wrote: »

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.... But this isn't secondary school, your'e adults and you need to take responsibility

Oh please desist from such overbearingly patronising nonsense which bears absolutely no relevance to the topic of this thread. As you seem to have not read the OP, the topic is: the absence of a teaching standard and quality control in teaching across this university. Thank you.

POSSY wrote: »

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?

Given that we have thus far not been given a course outline/structure/aims, a point which you persist in ignoring, "reading the relevant material" is difficult at present.

Seanchai

POSSY wrote: »

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.

The lecturer's personal financial circumstances and publication pressures are not the concern of students - perhaps he should bring it up with UCD management which is breaching government directives and paying more to attract outside academics while reducing the pay of UCD academics?

Moreover, UCD continues to charge students tuition fees for course which UCD promises to deliver. It is the frequently unacceptably poor quality of the deliverance of that teaching which is at issue here, not the trials and tribulations of UCD employees. With all due respect, that is between those people and UCD.

Bizarrely, in this thread the people who claim to be victims of UCD's cutbacks and the greater workload are here attacking students who demand value for their tuition fees, when they patently should be attacking their employers in UCD. Attacking students who demand quality teaching for their tuition fees is, of course, an easier option.

Seanchai

Raphael wrote: »

No, the fact that it's right and acceptable makes it right and acceptable. Just because it offends you, doesn't make it wrong.

Wow. Personalise much? I can see you've invested considerable thought in this issue, although not as much as you have in personal invective. I await your next published paper, 30,000 Boards.ie posts later, in 2019.

Seanchai

Raphael wrote: »

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

What pompous, conceited, self-serving delusional drivel. Incredible. I've seen mediocre wannabe intellectuals trot out the same self-serving lines for years. They get on a Masters or a PhD and they think they're on the inside track. They think they've a chance of getting tenure if they support the status quo all the way and are usually sycophantic to senior members of the department. Attack the system and they must defend it because they are defending their dreams of one day being part of it. Simple as.

By the time they get to their viva they are disillusioned with the corrections and time it has taken. By the time they are, if they're lucky, on their second poorly-paid post-doc they are nearly always broken people. Mortgages? Settling-down to secure employment? Sorry, but time to move on.

While their manner and their clearly mediocre intelligence behind it are repellent, in fairness even hard-working, quiet and more intelligent PhD students who do not waste their postgrad posting thousands of messages on the internet, have little chance of getting a job. But I won't say any more, in deference to the man who wrote 'Tread softly for you tread on my dreams.'

By the way, the primary reason lecturers are supposed to teach is because their employer receives millions of euro in tuition fees from students for that. That you can romanticise the financial reality like above is unfortunate for you. That you are happy that lecturers slack off from their professional responsibility to provide good quality teaching in exchange for those tuition fees, and that you attack students who demand that standard, betrays a repellent sense of entitlement and not a little contempt for, and sycophancy on, the students of UCD.

Seanchai

Raphael wrote: »

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.

How about they just call themselves researchers then and organise themselves into private companies with no state support, and certainly with no fee income from students?

They want it both ways, and it's always some poor schmuck at the bottom, in the wannabe academic ranks, who feels a duty to defend the people at the top who are receiving these enormous subsidies from students and the state.

Raphael wrote: »

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.

As other people have noted, this is the "like it or lump it" mentality among the mé féiner academics in UCD and their army of sycophants in the postgrad wings which is all but telling students: don't come here because for your "tuition fees" we actually have no obligation to teach you - you students are an inconvenience on our work.' Nice.

If this mentality towards students is left unchecked, it will be the undoing of University College Dublin.

POSSY

Seanchai wrote: »

In other words, you have a teaching qualification? If so, that must make you among a very, very small group. Seriously: well done.

Alternatively, perhaps "aptly qualified to tutor" translates as "I've just started a Masters and the department gave me tutoring responsibilities for a few classes a week, paying me a pittance but it looks good on the cv"

The latter was precisely the standard "qualification" one needed to be a tutor not so very long ago in UCD.



I don't believe anybody here is saying or implying otherwise. Why invent this red herring? What is, however, being said is that the absence of quality control in teaching across UCD is leading to enormous variations in the quality of teaching here and that, as a consequence, there are many lecturers not even providing basic course outlines or course structures so that students can engage in learner autonomy. (Curiously, an appeal for "learner autonomy" to be facilitated by UCD "lecturers" has been translated into an appeal to be "spoonfed" by defenders of the status quo in UCD. Such is the dishonesty here.)

Accordingly, UCD is not fulfilling its obligation to provide quality teaching and consistency in teaching standards for the millions of euro which it is being paid each year in 'Tuition fees' from students. That is the problem, and why people persist in denying it is an issue and being personally offended by this fleecing of students being highlighted is baffling.




Oh please desist from such overbearingly patronising nonsense which bears absolutely no relevance to the topic of this thread. As you seem to have not read the OP, the topic is: the absence of a teaching standard and quality control in teaching across this university. Thank you.



Given that we have thus far not been given a course outline/structure/aims, a point which you persist in ignoring, "reading the relevant material" is difficult at present.

It means means I've a first class honours degree in Actuary, passed professional exams in the relevant area, published in top ranking journals in the research area and am about to wrap a PhD in the area... so fairly sure I can teach basic data analysis and econometrics.

POSSY

Seanchai wrote: »

The lecturer's personal financial circumstances and publication pressures are not the concern of students - perhaps he should bring it up with UCD management which is breaching government directives and paying more to attract outside academics while reducing the pay of UCD academics?

Moreover, UCD continues to charge students tuition fees for course which UCD promises to deliver. It is the frequently unacceptably poor quality of the deliverance of that teaching which is at issue here, not the trials and tribulations of UCD employees. With all due respect, that is between those people and UCD.

Bizarrely, in this thread the people who claim to be victims of UCD's cutbacks and the greater workload are here attacking students who demand value for their tuition fees, when they patently should be attacking their employers in UCD. Attacking students who demand quality teaching for their tuition fees is, of course, an easier option.

Any evidence for this statement beyond one or two anecdotes?

Plus I never attacked students, if you read my posts you'll notice that I accept there may be poor teachers in the university but at the end of the day the universities main aim is not teaching, I am criticising a) students who do not do the work and complain about the lecturers and b) the students who appear to demand an un-realistic attention to teaching by the university.

Mardy Bum

POSSY wrote: »

It means means I've a first class honours degree in Actuary, passed professional exams in the relevant area, published in top ranking journals in the research area and am about to wrap a PhD in the area... so fairly sure I can teach basic data analysis and econometrics.

Funny you should mention econometrics, that was one of the tutors I had who was brutal (difficulties with the language and also seemed to think the class was more about supervision than tutoring) to put it mildly (this was a few years ago). No blame on you but it seems the economics department cares very little regarding teaching which I can understand.

POSSY

Seanchai wrote: »

How about they just call themselves researchers then and organise themselves into private companies with no state support, and certainly with no fee income from students?

They want it both ways, and it's always some poor schmuck at the bottom, in the wannabe academic ranks, who feels a duty to defend the people at the top who are receiving these enormous subsidies from students and the state.



As other people have noted, this is the "like it or lump it" mentality among the mé féiner academics in UCD and their army of sycophants in the postgrad wings which is all but telling students: don't come here because for your "tuition fees" we actually have no obligation to teach you - you students are an inconvenience on our work.' Nice.

If this mentality towards students is left unchecked, it will be the undoing of University College Dublin.

Because it is far more beneficial to the state and the economy that they operate as a university developing technology to be used to attempt and generate growth within the state. Secondly, teaching is an inconvenience to most, if not all, academics. I don't think you'll find many who'd disagree with it. I don't like teaching, it's by far the least enjoyable part of my day-to-day duties. I'm good at it. I put effort into it, but I don't like it. I don't do it for my CV because no one could give a **** about it.

What's being pointed out by those who oppose your view is not like it or lump it, but rather that the idea some have that the main purpose of the university is to teach. It isn't. The main duty of the university is to carry out research and extend knowledge within the field. However, if it's a teaching focused third level institute you want, then that is precisely why the ITs were set up. So it's not like it or lump it. If you want to be attend courses delivered by very knowledgeable and published people in thier field, attend a university. If you want a third level education from an institution who will put massive emphasis on teaching then an IT is much better suited to you. That isn't like it or lump it, that's just the way it is.

On the other point you keep dodging, which is the impact of a university's research output on it's ranking. There was another thread on ITs vs Unis. Have a look at it. If you want a more teaching focused university, then given monetary and personnel constraints, the research side of the institution will clearly suffer, and to say "well that's the lecturers concern not mine" is a cop out. The research output of a university does affect how it's graduates are viewed.

And before you start: "oh you just want to be an academic and just think like that". I don't want to be a lecturer, I have turned down post-doc positions and would much rather work in industry so this isn't an academics viewpoint, it's just the view of someone who's been (relatively) on both sides of the student/academic divide.

POSSY

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Funny you should mention econometrics, that was one of the tutors I had who was brutal (difficulties with the language and also seemed to think the class was more about supervision than tutoring) to put it mildly (this was a few years ago). No blame on you but it seems the economics department cares very little regarding teaching which I can understand.

Not in the economics department. In Finance/Mathematics.

Mardy Bum

POSSY wrote: »

Not in the economics department. In Finance/Mathematics.

It used to be from what I can recall callled Applied Econometrics 1. It was ECONXXXX I think the module is shared across the different schools. It was a pretty big lecture.

POSSY

Mardy Bum wrote: »

It used to be from what I can recall callled Applied Econometrics 1. It was ECONXXXX I think the module is shared across the different schools. It was a pretty big lecture.

TBH I'm not 100% how the undergrad schools work, the econometrics I tutored at undergrad level was for Ec&Fi/Commerce students as far as I know. Besides a first year course on data analysis (... and never would I tutor first years again!), the classes I tutor are Masters courses in Smurfit.

AdamD

I did data analysis last year. Our tutor just did a couple of questions as fast as he could then left, that was it. Barely even spoke, just picked a question, did it as fast as he could and expected everybody to keep up and actually learn something from him doing questions. Wasn't much use at all.

POSSY

AdamD wrote: »

I did data analysis last year. Our tutor just did a couple of questions as fast as he could then left, that was it. Barely even spoke, just picked a question, did it as fast as he could and expected everybody to keep up and actually learn something from him doing questions. Wasn't much use at all.

Were you commerce or ag sci? If you're commerce and I am the tutor your'e talking about, as I recall I must have asked "does anyone have any questions?" about 10 times per question and covered every question, not just one on the tutorial question sheet (it was first semester data analysis). Also, did you attend your lectures? If so you were 1 in 5 of your class as 80% did not. Did you attempt tutorial questions before arriving? Did you ask questions when you were stuck? Or, were you one of the classes I tutored who sat there silently refusing to engage, with the exception of one mature student (I'm guessing she was a mature student due to her age).