To think university is fairly easy?

[watthaduck]

This is not a boast in any way, I am not trying to ruffle anybody's feathers but am genuinely curious if I'm missing something.

So I am at a fairly average university in Glasgow, I was a direct entrant into third year after completing my HND at another fairly average college in Glasgow. I am a mature student (28) and am studying social sciences with a main focus on politics, from there I'm hoping to do my masters in social work.

Anyways, leading up to university, I heard so many people, lecturers included telling me what a shock to the system university would be, how I would be studying constantly, how the workload would be so much more full on than college so I was fully prepared and slightly dreading it.

However, since starting beginning of October we have had 6 assessments for the term, 2 assessments per module which have mainly consisted of 1000 word to 2000 word essays, one assessment we had to complete four fairly basic questions and a presentation. Everyone on the course is freaking out, saying how difficult the workload is and how all the assessments are crammed together whilst me and another girl that have been on the same course from the start genuinely scratch our heads wondering if this is a joke.

I've only had one piece of coursework graded and this was the assessment with the four questions which I got 72 percent, not amazing but was happy with that being my first piece of work. Yet today I was speaking to other students who got 43 percent and said how difficult the work is this year.

At college we literally had about 12 pieces of coursework all within 6 weeks of each other including exams and I was very stressed but always passed with an A.

I guess my question is am I doing something wrong? I am putting in the bare minimum amount of effort to be honest as is my friend as struggling with motivation with it all being online. I've never felt less stress through education.

AIBU to think that people were just trying to scare me about uni? And that it's actually not that hard?

Obviously I understand and appreciate that some courses are harder than others and mine just might be a fairly easy one but I'm just waiting for someone to come out and shout JOKE

It depends on your course and university. My friend and I were studying similar courses, the requirements for each of my modules’ essays were the same as the ones of her dissertation. We both graduated with distinction but she was required to do 25-30% of the work I was required to do.

Oh, and I'm at a Top 20 Uni so it's definitely not a degree mill.

My assignments would be even easier if I just had to write 1-2k words, but it is often 3k words or more plus other items, such as creating diagnostic algorithms, PowerPoint presentations on the subject I've written about (performed in front of my entire cohort and have to be of UG lecture standard to achieve a First), several lab reports, amongst other things.

I agree to an extent, my arts degree with about five hours of contact time didn’t exactly bust my balls. I did then do a PGCE though which was hell!

As others have said it depends on the course. I studied engineering and I had 35 hours a week contact time that was a mix of lab, tutorials, seminars and lectures and shit loads of coursework outside of that. There was zero chance of 'winging' the course and missing lectures put you at a serious disadvantage. My final year was brutal and I was quite envious of some of fellow students who just seemed to doss their way through uni.

I think this thread goes to show, that in spite of some people arguing (on other platforms) that all degrees are equal regardless of where you go to university, it simply isn’t the case.

Having had a look at the A level entry requirements for this course for an 18 year old (BCC) at Caledonian I can why you are doing so much better than your peers. (I am using A levels as a point of comparison here because this is what I am familiar with, and probably most of the posters on this thread)

@DillonPanthersTexas

As others have said it depends on the course. I studied engineering and I had 35 hours a week contact time that was a mix of lab, tutorials, seminars and lectures and shit loads of coursework outside of that. There was zero chance of 'winging' the course and missing lectures put you at a serious disadvantage. My final year was brutal and I was quite envious of some of fellow students who just seemed to doss their way through uni.

Totally agree, my contact hours are the same (although it's now mostly online which has made it so much harder!) and anyone trying to wing it through a STEM degree unless they have a super genius IQ will find that they fail spectacularly.

From my experience so far, I have to agree.

I struggle with exams so I really found A Levels hard

But my university course is 50% coursework 50% practical, which suits me down to a T

@Ginfordinner well I don't know about A levels but I had to get AAA to get entry into the course.

It's AAA for my course, however I did Access Science as I'm in my 30s and I needed all Distinctions, which I got.

FWIW, I did get AAA in my A Levels however they were Law, English Lit and Psychology, but I decided I couldn't be arsed with Uni. Fast forward 12 years and I decide I'd quite like a Microbiology degree so had to fund the Access myself

It very much depends on the degree and institution. Mathematics at Oxford, physics at Cambridge or electrical engineering at Imperial would be difficult for any student. That's why people discriminate by subject and institution. There again you do get the odd 15 year old who could start a mathematics degree at Cambridge so some are just gifted.

Clearly you are able and have a knack for academic writing, meaning that you would have been capable of a more academic course at a more prestigious university. I would be more concerned about your mindset, though; you sound very passive. You are waiting for the course to become challenging but it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that you could create that challenge for yourself.

Maybe that's possible for OP, but in my course and others at my uni it really was a case of you'd be the kind of person who would get a first or you wouldn't. It wasn't dependent on the effort you put in, unless you were on the borderline, if you see what I mean.

Sorry, I missed this last night. I went to a very selective university where you didn't get a place unless the admissions tutors thought you at least had the potential for a First. Most of us didn't get them, of course, choosing instead to balance studies with extracurricular content. The really exceptional people were those who did all of the sport / drama / politics and still got excellent Firsts.

This is an interesting ethical point, though. What are the ethics of admitting someone on to a course and taking £9k of their cash every year for a course where their best expectation might be a low 2.2 (not that I suggest that this was the case for you)? I wonder if there are any admissions tutors reading.

So I am at a fairly average university in Glasgow

You said it yourself. Cali and UWS are not generally perceived as Scotland's answer to Oxbridge. Maybe if you were studying social sciences at Cambridge you'd find it harder/more rigorous?

In any case, presumably you're on course on a high first?

Yabu.
I think there is a massive difference in going in as a mature student and going in as an 18 year old .
Also entirely dependent on your course .
Yours might be “easy” but many are not , not by the time you get to the second year .

Probably depends on your personality. For me I'll be honest it was a piece of piss. I did an arts degree at a RG uni. First and second year I had 2x 2 hour seminars a week and 2x 1 hour lectures (which I almost never went to). Third year I had 1x 1 hour lecture (which again I almost never went to) and 1x 2 hour seminar.

I barely did any of the reading properly and mostly did my essays the night before they were due (I work better under pressure). My dissertation was started 5 days before it was due.

I graduated with a decent first.

@DM1209 Inspirational. I have just started my law degree (at a non-Russell Group uni) and am enjoying it a lot but there is a lot of content.

I suppose I shouldn't really say this, but I'm a university lecturer who is familiar with quite a few institutions in Scotland. I did my masters in another European country. There is a world of difference between the two. A taught masters is of course at a higher level than an undergrad of course but the standard of teaching and content was much higher than anything I'd encountered in Scotland.

I wouldn't say the standard at Glasgow Caledonian is university level at all in an international comparison. It will be teaching down to the level of the average student and their ability to do research. Even in some of the red brick Scottish universities that have been around longer, the standard can be woeful.

Add to this the propensity for Scottish students not to want to travel away from home (even to other Scottish universities) and you have a remarkably unmotivated bunch of students who are very atypical of the average student cohort. They also don't like to speak - the Scottish schools do a remarkably good job of producing the world's most quiet students in tutorials.

I think all of us lecturers know that if we marked assignments to proper university standards, far too high a proportion of students would fail (more than half) and that would mean no fees, so it's really dumbed down.

I can only imagine that at somewhere like Glasgow Caledonian with its low entry requirements, it's even worse, so your experience is not typical of university.

Why does Glasgow need 3 universities? Or 4, is the former Paisley College of Tech still going as a university?

Re. OP:

If you’re at a “fairly average” university, that might have some bearing. Why are you not at the University of Glasgow or at Strathclyde?

They also don't like to speak - the Scottish schools do a remarkably good job of producing the world's most quiet students in tutorials.
True! It's so strange.

This is an interesting ethical point, though. What are the ethics of admitting someone on to a course and taking £9k of their cash every year for a course where their best expectation might be a low 2.2 (not that I suggest that this was the case for you)? I wonder if there are any admissions tutors reading.

The fee is for the tuition provided, not for a guaranteed result. And I've seen a good many surprises in my life: students who seemed guaranteed a stellar record of Firsts in every exam judging from their A-levels, but who actually couldn't handle university studies and did surprisingly badly.

I have taught students who looked less impressive on paper because they had struggled in every area of life: teachers who didn't expect pupils from around here to go to university, parents who thought university was a waste of time, poverty, disability, less relevant choice of GCSEs and A-levels- and who did splendidly at university because this was the first place they could really be themselves and because they had already had to develop that self discipline (as may well be the case with the OP).

The problem with predictions is that they tend to favour students who already have had a lot of support in life: private schools, extra tuition, interested and supportive parents. We do know from studies that students from state schools tend to do better than their predicted grades at university, while students from a more privileged backgrounds do not.

@Janegrey333 they don't do the course I am doing. I was accepted to Strathclyde for law but would have had to start in 1st year again.

I do hate to speak in tutorials, I hate it with a passion and I don't think it's nice to force students to do so.

The fee is for the tuition provided, not for a guaranteed result.

Absolutely, and I don't mean to suggest otherwise. Admissions tutors have a very difficult job and I don't envy them.

I suppose what I'm wondering is what happens when you encounter a student for whom the course is clearly inappropriate, perhaps because they've been poorly advised about their options. Are you and your colleagues free to approach them and make suggestions for alternative paths or is there commercial pressure from the university to keep bums on seats?

*watthaduck" no-one is talking about "forcing" students to speak. But dont you want to develop your skills and get the full university experience? A higher level of education necessitates the ability to discuss your field of expertise.

If you're doing law, you're not going to be much use if you can't speak in front of a judge, or phone your client to update them on progress! It's not really a subject for those who wish to remain silent.

And as a mature student, you should find it easier to speak in tutorials. You really will be missing out on the full benefits of your university education if you don't speak in tutorials. Outside Scotland, students at University are required to give quite a few presentations in tutorials too, to help avoid this problem.