To expect university students to engage with their studies?

[PissedOffProf]

User name changed because I don't want to totally out myself.

I am a lecturer in a management department at a mid-level UK university. I have tons of experience in teaching, love my job, am nice to students and go out of my way to help them with their learning.

Increasingly, however, I am faced with classrooms of blank faces. Students who clearly have zero interest in their studies. Students who never prepare for their tutorials and have nothing to say. Students who are disruptive in class. Students who watch videos on their phones or do online shopping instead of engaging in classroom activities. Students who do not seem to have any respect for each other as they ignore the others when they speak. Students who, in the end, deliver mediocre work with zero critical thinking or creativity.

AIBU to ask why people decide to get tens of thousands of pounds in debt to spend three years of their lives being bored to death?

CostanzaG paying puts working class kids off.

Of course the ideal is a pure meritocracy - 20% say of the population, free at the point of use, frugal but non repayable grant, high academic entry requirements.

For it to work working class children would need equal educational opportunity at school age, which is a whole other can of worms.

Letting any 18 year old with 2 Es at A level go to uni as long as they are happy to take on a huge debt is not the way to ensure working class children aspire to uni, it's the way to ensure middle class parents bring all their children up to expect and feel entitled to a degree as their right, without doing much work and without being suited to academic study.

Sadly, this doesn't surprise me. My DS2 is 17 and at sixth form studying for a Btec level 3 and retaking maths and English GCSE. I'm helping him try to decide what to do when he leaves and believe the apprentice route would be perfect for him. However college are trying to push him to look at universities because "it opens so many more doors".

This is a child, who sat in the bottom-middle sets throughout school, showed very little interest in being there and basically does the bare minimum to scrape through.

Unconditional offers aren’t entirely new. I know lots of people that got them in the 90s based on their 5th year higher results. The difference is that there are weird conditional-unconditional offers now that are a kind of pressure selling.

I agree that the idea that all your classes must be interesting and entertaining is a problem now. Some parts of subjects just are boring but you need to learn them anyway if you want to study the rest. An expectation that introduction to descriptive statistics should be interesting is almost certainly unreasonable.

The whole student satisfaction thing is really depressing. The whole sector really needs to start asking if the students’ claims of dissatisfaction are reasonable. Being dissatisfied because you were expected to read things or work on your dissertation independently is not reasonable (but that’s the sort of thing my students complain about). Being annoyed that you had to come up with your own answer to an essay question is not reasonable. Complaining that you didn’t get any support from the supervisor that you never contacted (or didn’t turn up to any meetings even when they were scheduled) is unreasonable. But, again, I could currently identify around 50 students doing exactly that on their anxiety and dissatisfaction maximising FB messenger group. Being dissatisfied about the feedback you received when we know for a fact that only 20% of you even looked at the feedback is not reasonable, but that will still be something they complain about in the NSS.

Instead we get told to pander ever more to this and create ridiculous expectations in my institution. It’s absurd and does the students no favours.

blueskies actually the evidence that fees puts working class students off isn't conclusive. There is lots of evidence to the contrary. In fact, until this year there was an upward trend of young people from lower socioeconomic groups applying and attending university.

The system you describe was incredibly elitist. We don't want to return to that.
The current system has its flaws ( many of them) but at least more non-traditional students have the opportunity to attend HE. Now we just need to ensure they have the opportunity to attend the best universities.

Because this generation has the attention span of a gnat. They don't want to work, and instead of only the brightest being accepted into uni, every divvy and their mother is let in

helps not at all universities. Some do not engage in the unconditional offer debacle and still have high entry requirements.
That kind of sweeping generalisation is damaging to the sector

CostanzaG what is the point in 50% of kids going to uni if they're behaving like entitled middle set year 9s while they're there and either unwilling or unable to do degree level independent study?

Are they or society benefiting in any way from being spoonfed and coached and babied through? Is the level of intellectual rigour outside top 10 in their subject departments gone?

People on this thread are describing undergraduates doing less independent study and being less engaged than decent A level candidates. It shouldn't be possible for those students to be walking out with degrees. What's the point?

I never said we should have 50% of school leavers attending university (that's not actually the policy and it will never be achieved)
BUT
An elitist system is also not the answer. Higher education should be available to those who have the ability to succeed and benefit from it. That's not a blanket statement suggesting 50% of the population should to to uni. That's saying that nobody should be prevented from attending university just because of their social class or financial background.

helacells, is there any evidence that only the brightest were let into universities in previous generations? look at our politicians, people who can't be arsed to read a 32 page document that is absolutely crucial to their well-paid political role: are you sure it's the current generation of 18yos that have the attention span of a gnat?

I have spent nearly 30 years teaching undergraduates and postgraduates, and I can't say I have seen any drastic decline in either intelligence or commitment in that time

what I have seen- and this really worries me- is a sharp rise in anxiety, a fear that your whole life will be ruined and you will have let everybody down if you don't understand exactly what is expected of you in the exam

also more parental input- but that is hardly the fault of the students; indeed, it often lays a double burden on them

that ime is what drives students to inquire anxiously about whether a certain type of question will come up on the exam: they have been taught since they were 7 that their teachers and their school depend on them performing like well-trained seals for the SATS, GCSEs, A-levels, that they will be letting everybody down

I doubt there are many in my seminars who have the casual attitude of my dh who flunked his A-levels in the 70s because he couldn't be arsed to study but still got into UCL because he came from a nice school

or Toby Young who didn't get the grades for Oxford but still got in because his dad rang the admissions officer

and it's all very well saying only 20% should go to universities- but who is going to insist that businesses take on the whole burden of training them that they used to perform? at the moment they ask for graduates because they want that job to be done and because they want universities to do the job of separating the grain from the chaff rather than take the risk of taking on someone who turns out to be not very capable

But I do agree that the whole concept of grading universities and lecturers on student satisfaction is seriously flawed. There are masses of relevant research showing that evaluation questionnaires are skewed against women and POC. I have sat through lectures series where a slight young woman delivered an excellent lecture, thoughtful and pedagogical and inspiring, followed by a male lecturer who clearly had done no preparation- and I have heard how the students swooned over his performance and ignored the woman who actually contributed something. I once taught a family of Nazis- you can imagine how they would have graded a black woman teacher.
And of course anyone who makes students face up to their insufficiencies will get a lower grade. As will the person who gets assigned the non-sexy module.
Yet we are told that evaluation grades should now be used in our appraisal. That is clearly wrong. But it is not the fault of the young people. It is the fault of our generation who wilfully and thoughtlessly created a world where everything has to be quantified.

I don't think students are necessarily less intelligent, but my perception is that students are regarding university in a far more instrumental way. I often get asked, 'how much work do i need to do to get a 2:1?'. They seem to think they are buying an uoper second degree and it is our job to wave them through and they just need to go through the motions. I don't blame them in a way, they've been through an education system that is characterised by league tables, SATS results and discourages a love of learning for its own sake or intellectual curiosity. At university they are told thet are consumers and they're buying a service, so it shouldn't be a surprise when they think they're buying something and expect to be spoon fed, as if they're buying knowledge by the pound.

Also universities are locked in a battle for students with competitor institutions, so pander to this rhetoric and pressure is pit on us academics. Teaching ildirectors get a bit sniffy with us if we give out more than a few 2:2s and they have to be atrociously bad to get sub 60 and anything in the high 50s will see students banging in appeals left right and centre. I not only have to give my third years a three article core reading list, but tell them what order to read them in, but what to look out for in each otherwise they won't do any reading.

CostanzaG I absolutely agree with that. I disagree with university bein the automatic route for all middle class 18 year olds, most of whom aren't suited to higher level academic study.

Yanbu op...i am a mature student and just don't get the attitude of some. I am very happy after getting 98% in my exam but i think that is down to the hard work i put in and the fact that i engage with lectures. Maturity has helped with this and i already have a socual life so i dont have to bother forging another one at uni. It is very daunting going to uni at 18 and having to build a new life.
I dropped out of my 1st degree as i wasn't coping.

Because most entry level jobs ask for degrees for some weird reason.

corythatwas that is an interesting insight.

You're right - I never knew people like that. A genuine meritocratic admission system is the ideal IMO - perhaps, as you say, that's never existed.

Consumer culture applied to higher education reduces quality, as does just letting everyone in.

Most jobs don't need degrees in reality, but a degree is now listed as a requirement just because they're now as common as 5 good O levels used to be. That's wrong IMO.

Nobody benefits from non academic 18 year olds going to university and not engaging in independent study and critical thinking. Young people incapable of independent study and unwilling to read around, think, debate, and try to be original should not be at university. Obviously undergraduates rarely are actually original but they should have that aim!

Especially in non vocational degree there is only benefit for the top ten to twenty percent (academically). I absolutely concede that socioeconomic background makes ability hard to gauge accurately based just on a levels and even if a one day interview is involved and that's the problem.

The answer isn't letting everyone in and downgrading degrees to spoonfed consumer experiences though.

I was an engaged student and got a 1st (although was a mature student, so had got the partying bit out of the way). As someone said above, I had other responsibilities such as part-time work and life admin to deal with too.

The timetabling was also a bit bonkers and really didn't consider the students needs. On some days I was expected to travel for 40 mins each way to attend just one seminar of 40mins that did nothing to add to my learning (plus an additional expense of bus fare too). I'd rather spend that time on essays or research. Some days lectures got changed to my working days, so I couldn't attend. Overall, I attended about 70% of the time and just went to what I thought was necessary. We had access to the lecture material online and it was me who was paying for it after all, so I felt I could decide what was worth me attending.

I do think it is very disrespectful that lessons are interrupted by bad behaviour though, especially since people pay a lot to attend. This was one of the things that pissed me off in lectures. It did cross my mind why people even bothered to turn up if they weren't even going to listen.

I agree high levels of parental involvement is a double edged sword too.

My parents certainly had no idea what I was doing at university - they certainly didn't know whether I had an essay due or which modules I was studying, let alone know who my tutors were. I find the level of involvement some parents profess to have astonishing, and it's no wonder their children feel both pressured and helpless and respond by regressing and expecting "grown ups" to take responsibility for them.

What an interesting thread! Lots of point raised that I hadn't really considered, especially from lecturers and students.

My DS is in Y1 at an ex Poly doing Computing via BTEC entry. He hasn't complained about poor teaching but occasionally does say that he is surprised how academically poor some of his course mates are, how they could have got on the course with such a lack of basic knowledge.

He was offered an unconditional from another uni but chose this one, having received 2 starred Distinctions and a Distinction for his BTEC, but unfortunately in his subject the divide between ex-poly and RG is a good Maths A level so there definitely are kids at his uni who are only there for the 'guaranteed' 2:1 which opens employment jobs, and the course entry requirements are BBC.

But, the thing is, we have created this monster; the 'all shall have degrees' nonsense, the employers with a couple of O levels who demand 2:1s from their employees, the 'probably never going to pay the loan back' attitude.

Far too many kids, and their families are being sold a pup, but there are all but no alternatives to uni. Who needs a degree in dance? There are far too few apprenticeships, and many of them are exploitative (apprentice barista, anyone?).

The funding model is ridiculous and openly promotes offering daft degrees in unemployable subjects with ridiculously low entry. This starts with how we disdain Techs over sixth forms and A levels. I know plenty of DC who leave Sixth Form with a D and an E. They should never have gone there. But the alternatives either do not exist or are looked down on. And thus the system perpetuates.

I wonder if now student debt is being counted in the public accounts we might see changes?

I agree that uni should be rather harder to get into, and that there should be an independent OFSTED style evaluation with a lot less emphasis on student input since so many are at uni for the wrong reasons.

Marmaladehandbag surely attendance monitoring is one of the reasons for bad behaviour.

When I was at university only attendance at small group tutorials was monitored. You were entirely responsible for your own lecture attendance. That culture means students understand that they are wholly responsible for their own choices.
Taking attendance encourages a culture of passive consumption, expecting to receive education in a sponge like way, abdicating responsibility and assuming that if you're physically present you have done your part. Presenteeism usually means lack of engagement and productivity.

If I may add a bit more- I know this is academics blowing off steam, but I don't actually recognise the extent of the spoonfeeding mentioned on this thread.

Perhaps I'm just a particularly nasty lecturer, but I always end up giving at least a few Thirds and a fair few 2:2s- because there are students whose work doesn't merit higher grades. I have never had an appeal made against me by a student: the only student who once threatened in writing to do so was a mature female student of roughly my own age (so mid-to-late 40s at the time). The only time I have felt threatened by a student was also by a mature student (man in his 60s) because I ventured to suggest that maybe it was his responsibility to check the exam timetable rather than mine to provide a replacement exam. I have had more problems of that kind with mature students coming from a successful business background and used to running the show than with young students who are often painfully polite.

If essays or exams are bad enough, they fail.

I also see some excellent work, and students of mine go on from my middling RG university to make valuable contributions to the field, both as part of the academic world and outside it. My proudest moments are seeing students who I know have been struggling with their MH or serious family problems, who have maybe had to resit exams or even repeat whole programmes, finally do well despite all the odds.

I also see how hard my dd works at her drama school. Sometimes she sends me pictures of her bruises but never in a self-pitying way, more because she is proud of her achievements.

I wonder if part of the problem is premature spécialisation in the U.K. system which leads to students doing courses they don't really want to do?

My DD is on a liberal arts/ social sciences type degree course in Paris, that she started with the intention of majoring in law with either economics or politics. It's now looking quite likely that she will take history and history of art as her majors in her second year. She hates law, so it's a good thing she didn't embark on a single-subject degree ...

"Who needs a degree in dance"

The entertainment industry is one of our major industries. And companies expect recruits to be far more trained and slick (particularly in acting) than they used to, because they don't want to/can't afford to train them.

The reason conservatoires call their vocational drama and dance training a BA is simply because otherwise students wouldn't have access to student loans. Dd is auditioning for a BA in drama atm Doesn't actually mean she will be writing essays or sitting traditional exams: she will be learning stage combat and how to look after her voice and basic directing. But she can't afford to do it without a loan.

A dance or acting MA is usually simply an intensive course in acting or dancing. But again, if you don't map it against the standard code you miss out on the funding.

It is appalling to think that many-even if it's 40%-will be the doctors, engineers, teachers, social workers of the future and they will have just picked up enough to answer a few exam questions. Heaven help us all!

If it isn't nipped in the bud soon, there will be serious repercussions for the rest of society: so called professionals who know bugger all and teachers knowing next to nothing about their subject.

I think the answer is to give out less top grades at A level-if too many get them, make them more difficult to get- and then let only the top 10% go and the government pays for the tuition for them all.

"and then let only the top 10% go and the government pays for the tuition for them all."

Have you considered what is going to happen to the rest? We no longer have the large number of manufacturing jobs or jobs in agricultural that youngsters used to go into. Far more than 10% of the population will have to take jobs in offices/business etc.

How will you persuade these businesses to suddenly start to take on 18yos who have not gone through the additional sorting process of university and to train them in the reading and writing skills that society did not require of most of its workers 60 years ago but which it now does?

I spend endless hours of the time supposedly devoted to ancient literature in training my students how to write a good and engaging report or make an oral presentation that doesn't send the audience to sleep. We also have special Literary Fellows who work on helping students further with their writing skills. And it makes a difference: over 3 years I see how individual students improve. Of course we would be delighted not to have to do this. But would prospective employers be prepared to do it for us?

Just popping in to express solidarity - @chemenger I'm tempted to C and P your post and put it up on my wall

All the "why should I drive an hour for one seminar" used to get me down at my last institution. Do a degree full time, expect not to have everything in one day for your convenience. If you need that -take your degree P/T- that's what the provision is for. Makes me long for the days there were residency requirements