As a parent, do you feel your DC's Uni "should" communicate with you?

[UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea]

A general question really, I work for a uni and we regularly get complaints from parents that we should have told them stuff.

But, the student is an adult and the contract is between the student and the university, even if parents are paying the fees/living allowance.

In some cases we would be breaking confidentiality by informing parents (e.g. Health issues), in others, I just think it's odd that parents get involved (e.g. student not picked for sports team).

Would appreciate some views/experiences

Figures such as the staff:pupil ratio or spend per student are much more useful than a research excellence framework when parents and students and the public are trying to compare universities.
As to research outcomes being in the public domain: of course they should be. Is a researcher on a public grant expecting to be praised simply for putting results in the public domain? The praise comes if the research is any good, not simply because it is made public.
In the same way there should be information made available to the public as to what proportion of tutors actually mark work within a reasonable time frame, and what proportion of students actually see their tutors for even a single one to one session per term. Or per year for that matter. And what proportion of tutors do not see their students at all other than when giving two lectures a term.

I do think parents should be kept at a very long arms length. But- and it is an important but- tutors are fallible human beings, probably as liable to ignore or abuse students as parents might be (which is to say, rarely), and so I think there needs to be a safety net, a system of accountability, and, yes, a system for informing next of kin if there is something seriously wrong.

I'm not sure why I feel the need to say this, because, as I posted upthread, both the DC's universities (Oxford and London) have exemplary frameworks and structures and safety nets.

Figures such as the staff:pupil ratio or spend per student are much more useful than a research excellence framework when parents and students and the public are trying to compare universities

Actually they are not. For example, the staff:pupil ratio tells you very little. It measures the number of bodies not the amount of time students get. So an academic that does 10 hours of lectures a year counts in the same way as one that does 10 hours a week. Spend per students is also manipulated in different ways.

As to research outcomes being in the public domain: of course they should be

Yes, but currently the plans are for universities to have to pay publishers which will have an adverse effect on everyone accept the publishing industry (we need a whole other thread for this).

In the same way there should be information made available to the public as to what proportion of tutors actually mark work within a reasonable time frame, and what proportion of students actually see their tutors for even a single one to one session per term. Or per year for that matter. And what proportion of tutors do not see their students at all other than when giving two lectures a term

Most universities have rules about feedback turnaround times and staff can be disciplined for not adhering to them. But this is not always a good thing. The emphasis on time means that this is more important than quality of comments. So you can now get better ratings by giving a few ticks and a sentence at the end than detailed comments on what was good, needs improving or extra things to think about. BTW each year my dept files thousands of pieces of uncollected coursework, because a good proportion of students can't be bothered to pick up their work (and if it doesn't count towards they degree, sometimes they won't have done it anyway).

I have 4 hours of office hours a week to see students, and these are barely used. I send out regular emails to students reminding them to come and see me, but I can't make them. So yes, I have personal tutees that I have not seen all year, but this is not my decision.

The vast majority of academics and universities are supportive and accountable, but a significant proportion of students do not want to engage. They are adults and this is their decision. But parents will either not know or blame us, because it is easier to do this than recognise that their child has a problem.

I don't see how the REF can not affecting teaching?

I'm only a grad student and I can see how much time and energy it is taking for everyone. In an ideal world quality of research ought to have a huge effect on teaching, as it's fun getting taught by someone who is good and who is finding out new things that their students get to learn about. I'm not sure that's what the REF is actually measuring, but in theory, it would be.

I know it probably sounds very airy-fairy if you just want to go to university and rote-learn everything, but if you don't (and you shouldn't), having someone who is really excited to tell you about their new theory on x, or the work people have just started doing on y, seems to me one of the best things, right?

Btw, there was a piece in the paper that talked about students' hours of contact time, and it mentioned (among others) my university. I figured out that the students they mentioned must've been calculating 'contact time' as the time when they were in lectures, seminars or classes. They ignored the time I set aside to give them feedback for essays, and they ignored the fact that I and the lecturer on the course both had office hours.

No, of course universities shouldn't talk to the parents of adults.
I would have been quite upset if my university had sent info to my parents and felt it a breach of confidentiality. If you're an 18 year old working your boss doesn't negotiate with your parents.
It's up to students to discuss stuff with their parents if they wish. I suspect parents who wish to be involved have been overinvolved with their kids as teenagers and haven't brought up their kids to be independant enough.
I would hope any student whose parent tried to affect the composition of the uni sports teams so their pfb is included would be mortified.
If my kids have health problems when at college I expect them to tell me, (or choose not to).

re health issues of students why should a parent have any more "right" to be told if their adult offspring has mental health issues if they stay in education than if they leave it?
If an 18 year old moves away to work and get depressed the parents will only find out via their offspring. Why should it be any different because they are still in university?
The students GP/ guidance person could encourage them to tell their parents but informing parents without an adult's permission is rarely done.

I would not put a blame on either parents or university. The situation is far more complex as to why students do not attend or drop etc. I can give you over a hundred reasons in support of each side parents or universities, but this is not the point here.

funnyperson Things are much complex. My point is that not everything depends on the pastoral care of any university no matter how good it is; whether you live in US or UK. The pastoral care people are not trained as Psychologists or or docs and if there is a underlying factor they may not be able to direct the student to what they should do. I agree with your first paragraph. You have only one college experience and you are very lucky so far. But as my DC did a degree at Oxford we know the regulations and ...experience from people - as you corectly pointed out - varies between colleges. There are many posts in the Thestudentroom on that. Sadly a % of students drop, there are are figures here here about dropping out .

UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea not everything depends on the university pastoral care no matter how well this is provided. in my experience it is far more important that if the university is concerned seriously about the health of the student they should try to contact nurse or GP in the first place - and must have the procedures doing so. I have similar experience as parent. Non-attendance is a matter the tutor should take up with student. If the tutor feels there is an issue they might recommend the student to see the doc or other specialist. I think you should not feel you are guilty. There are a complexity of factors involved in each student and we cannot disagregate which one was responsible. GPs need to be informed and many times they might not catch them for a number of reasons. The reason parents complaint to you is that they fund big part of the study bill of the DC, which is like a mortgage and do not want their DC to end up in a poorly paid job or welfare dependency. This is something affecting all of us.

To conclude I would not blame the students either for the same reason I do not blame the university or parent. The factors involved are very complex.

The vast majority of academics and universities are supportive and accountable, but a significant proportion of students do not want to engage. They are adults and this is their decision. But parents will either not know or blame us, because it is easier to do this than recognise that their child has a problem

What creamteas says in her entire post, but this is worth repeating.

Furthermore, all the things funnyperson says should be available already are -- which suggests that parents can sometimes be as uninformed as their DCs.

Staff:student (they're not "pupils") ratios, plus spend per student are KPIs (key performance indicators) in all league tables. As are REF scores, because yes, how good we are at research does have a bearing on our teaching. My students can read the latest work published by me and my colleagues, and therefore keep up to date with the discipline.

I suggest that those of you with ideas about how expert professionals (and by god, some of us are expert!) should run the profession, check what we actually do now. Ask your undergrad DCs. See how much they actually know. See how much is in the public domain.

And then see why the academics on this thread are expressing frustration at the current levels & nature of engagement -- both of parents and their undergrad DCs.

I wish that someone could tell me the age at which they do become adult and responsible for themselves. If they go as a mature student at 21yrs would you still expect the parent to be informed? 25yrs? 30yrs?
If you are a parent who wants more contact where is your personal cut off?
Legally it is 18yrs which is why you don't get involved. I am interested to know where people would let go. I begin to suspect that it is not until they change roles and the parent needs the looking after!

Late to this but no I don't think that my dc's university should communicate with me. I have had 3 at university and contacted them just once for guidance (needed info about the support available at university) when I was concerned about my son's mental health.

creamteas You do not have evidence for this allegation that a 'significant proportion of students do not want to engage? . I do not believe this is accurate . Someone borrowing and paying 9,000 is unlikely not to care for his study and debts. I do not think there is one piece of article in the news supporting this opinion about students who get loans. I have never spoken to an academic face to face who told me this thing. When my DC was a student at Oxford nobody ever said this thing to the students. Universities have procedures to tell the student they have to address poor performance and lack of attendance. it is always that a tutor always contacts them.

Ok, mariscal, maybe they really do want to engage but winged eagles swoop down and prevent them from attending all voluntary feedback/tutorial sessions?

Or what would you consider to be 'evidence' if not attendance rates?

mariscal I can say that 'significant proportion of students do not want to engage? because they do not.

I work at a good uni (average entry grade is ABB). But students fail to attend classes, fail to do set reading, fail to turn in work, and fail to attend appointments.

In my faculty, only about 40-50% of students bother to hand in term-papers and average attendance rates are 60-70%. Nominally these students could be thrown out just for this, but it doesn't happen. We only withdraw students who fail formal assessments.

When chased (because that is what we do), some of the persistent non-attenders have jobs that they prioritise over classes, a few have more serious issues. But in most cases, there is no good reason, they just didn't bother.

I have not seen any analysis yet, but my colleagues and I are getting the feeling that even less of the first years who are on higher fees are engaging than in previous years. I suspect that it is for similar reasons that have been expressed in this thread. Adegree is something to be to be bought like a car and a house rather that studied for because you have an interested in the subject and want to know and understand more.

Anyone going to say when they become responsible for themselves, if not at 18yrs?

The point is exotic that whatever age is deemed to be the most appropriate all parties should agree. So if it is decided that it is 18 (which I think is fair) then the government too should agree to this as well. If this was the case then a parents' income would not be taken into account when calculating loans and grants.

exotic I'm tempted to say 12, just to stand back and watch the reaction

That is what I think creamteas

I totally agree with the point made by goinggetstough though.

If they're adults at 18 (which they are) then SFE should sod off asking me my income and expecting me to support them when the grant/loan barely covers the rent.

MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik There has not been many studies into the non-attendance of degrees. I do not know how there could be a methodology covering various degrees. I know one study in 2001 where half of the students 780 interviewed said they missed classes because they had to work to make a living and study. Another study in 2005 and none before of 155 students who stated reasons for absenteeism : illness, bad transport, too many assignments to catch, had to do a job to make a living, poor lectures, disregard for student (something said by a previous poster also academic) , stress and nervous before tutes. Many students work and study.

The question which arises is: does non-attendance, affect students' success in a course? and which degrees? I know that it is impossible to get away in engineering, architecture, and some lab-requiring subjects without attendance in class and labs. But how do we define poor learning and what causes this? But the vast majority of degrees are 2.1 and above which show generaly v good learning.

Creamteas do you know whether your students did not come to classes because they have to work and pay living, study and their debts? Are they caring for somebody else? It is very hard for any one to find £9000 to pay fees and another sum so high for maintenance. I find the vast majority of students are very responsible. The post of HuglessDouglas tells you why.

I'd agree 18 is a good enough marker in general, but also agree that the government doesn't appear to think so. 18-21 year olds in full time education get treated as quasi children in a number of ways.

Personally I am all for independence, with the caveat that it is a vulnerable age for a range of mental health problems possibly because children are more cotton wooled, but also because of brain development factors. So that does need to be taken into account.

I guess part of the problem with this conversation though is that many of us are thinking back to our university experiences (I know I am) and not recalling much pastoral care going on at all.

My department for example, which scored very high on research had no tutors, and several professors used MA students for their seminars too, so the only contact was the weekly/twice weekly lectures, which with a couple of hundred students doesn't really constitute contact in any meaningful sense. They may well have had office time, but it was also pretty clear that they view was they didn't like undergraduate students and didn't expert to spend any time on us. Now that might have been completely wrong, and the reason they thought we were all lazy buggers is because we didn't go to see them, but the dynamic was all wrong. I recall once one of my lecturers calling me over (I think after a seminar) because I'd not handed something in, or had a poor attitude and his asking me if everything was OK, and no I wasn't able to tell him that I was having massive boyfriend problems and having just got about my 20th rejection letter was feeling pretty shit, because I had no relationship with him.

The contrast to my sister at Oxford with a personal tutor or even my dh at the same university whose department (not so good at research) booked time for each student to get their essays back in person.

I would imagine this sort of variation likely goes on today too.

part of the problem with this conversation though is that many of us are thinking back to our university experiences

Some of us who actually work in HE are thinking of our current experience!

And things have changed a lot since I was an undergrad (back in the stone age). Do'you know, I sometimes think I had a better education then despite the atmosphere of benign neglect? But then I was a very motivated student.

Once again, I think creamteas is utterly spot on (I suspect we've worked at the same or similar institutions). Her experience is mine:

I work at a good uni (average entry grade is ABB). But students fail to attend classes, fail to do set reading, fail to turn in work, and fail to attend appointments

And as I said upthread, those non-attenders, non-submitters of essays in my big core module are being given a second chance at submitting required assessment tasks in August which will require me to take four days out of a family holiday on the other side of the world, mark their essays (if they all submit it'll be about 20,000 words in total), find an internet connection & email back marks. Out of the half-dozen students who are being offered re-assessment, only one is for mitigating circumstances. The others are all being given second chances to make up for work (sometimes 2-3 pieces of work) they decided not to submit at the required times. No-one is compensating me any costs for the holiday disruption nor holiday days.

So forgive me for being a bit hmmmm about some of what parents of undergrads are saying here.

Sorry, yes I know that it's not true for the academics! But you can only speak from your perceptions, you don't know what the students/parents think about arrangements, they may have a completely different view (right or wrong).

I was a typical student I think and about as lazy as any other, missed many lectures often delivered essays late and generally didn't live up to my potential. This is the typical student stereotype so I am guessing is still true for many. I would not have expected my parents to blame the university for me being a bit crap, nor do I. I certainly had a very different attitude when it came to my masters five or six years down the line.

But I do think that someone from the university could have visited my friend who was sectioned, although it is quite possible that they never knew she was in the hospital. That is my only real concern, just that sufficient thought is put into how to support students who really really fall apart. I don't think this is a role for academics mind you.

It is absurd that parental income is taken into account when repayment is contingent on the student's future earnings ... not least because there is no obligation on the parents to provide any financial support even if their income reduces the student's access to student loans, fee remission, hardship funds, etc.

But statistically students from less affluent backgrounds do receive less family financial support and are more put off by the potential costs, so I do get why the rules are what they are.