Open days - what attracts you? What puts you off?

[shovetheholly]

I'm interested in hearing about your experiences of open days!

What attracts you and your DS/DD to a course or a place? What puts you off? What kind of information is it good to receive about the course? How much does the city/town of the university matter? How significant are job prospects later on to your decision? Do open days always confirm what you already think, or has one changed your mind (either positively or negatively)?

Am asking because we rarely get honest feedback from parents on the day (for obvious reasons), and I'd love to hear what you REALLY think... and get a sense of what we can do better.

Yes, student satisfaction is a broad-brush measure. In DH's field, there's one (very highly ranked and regarded) institution that scores consistently low on student satisfaction. Having some experience of that institution both as a student and as a lecturer, and knowledge of that department via friends, there are very good reasons for those scores being lower than elsewhere! Sometimes strong institutional reputation does not correlate to a great student experience.

It was a few years ago now, but here was what I remember.

From a Uni (that on paper was my favourite but I ultimately rejected because of the open day):
The open day lectures combined different subjects, which meant that I had to sit through 45 minutes of 'teaching' in a different language to what had applied to study - I had never studied this language in my life! Tedious doesn't cover it.
The lecturers leading the Q&A couldn't answer very basic questions, e.g. 'how many contact hours will I have in first year?'
The Christian society were camped out across from the assembly point offering a free lunch in return for some proselytising. Except it completely wasn't clear who they actually were! Universities just shouldn't let these activities take place on those days.
There were too many people handing out club night promotion leaflets outside the union. Yes, they do it every day but it's annoying to students who would actually go to the club night, let alone those desperately trying to follow a tour!
On the programme we were referred to X event happening in XYZ building - but no map. Building names only make sense to someone who already has knowledge.

Things that attracted me to change my choice:
A lecturer recognised me from a previous event and said hello based on that.
Informal meet & greet café chats as well as Q&As at the end of lectures.
The HOD/ course leaders making themselves available (why should I bother if they can't?)
Shuttle buses or suggestions on where to park.
There was an error in communication and an event had been misprinted as happening in the morning instead of the afternoon. Lots of people were pissed off. The HOD turned up and gave a really honest and frank apology. I was impressed at the sincerity.

Other things I enjoyed:
Presentations by students (finds a good ground between scripted and authentic IMO)
Free refreshments in the form of vouchers for on campus cafés rather than sad looking wilted buffets. Nice to see what the students eat too!
Library tours - the library was so different to how I expected. On one open day I went to the library was locked and the guide didn't know how to get in .

I think sock has a point. Your cohort is very important.

One issue for STEM students, say, is that they can be on demanding courses with lots of early morning lectures, alongside students on much more accessible courses with much lower teaching loads. And so either distraction, we know a bright boy who failed first year exams because he tried to keep up with his partying friends, and its difficult to do that when on an A A A type course. Or frustration, as you are regularly woken up at 4.00am by flat mates who don't have 9.00am lectures.

The real joy for DS has been the amount of enrichment type activity available at his University. He had no idea when applying. So a year 1 optional lecture series had him preparing a paper with friends, but also hearing various PhD students present on their research. He now attends a similar collaborative seminar series aimed mainly at postgrads, has been able to flex his degree sufficiently to include some supervised research, as well as doing some voluntary teaching on an optional student run course aimed at those on qualitative degrees wanting to improve their understanding of statistical methods. All of which has had him challenged and improving his skill set.

Equally a friend of DDs elsewhere, is a bit shocked that some of her peers do not share her love of English Literature, and take an approach similar to that described by sock. But there too she is benefiting from impressive additional encouragement and enrichment. The same goes for a friend of DS' who is very involved in a subject-linked student society which gets strong academic support, and who plans to pursue this interest at Masters level.

I don't know how to put it, but there is a bit of an assumption that there is Oxbridge and the rest. However there are lots of other places that give good and engaged students a great education which goes beyond the syllabus and which encourages students to pursue and explore interests. Which is what tertiary education, to some extent, should be about.

Different students are looking for different things. If your institution is able to offer a good level of enrichment, you should say. It will be as important to some of your students as great sports facilities or a good night life. (Especially perhaps for the narrow Oxbridge misses and /or the late developers, who might then go on to perform in the 20% of your intake, and who presumably the group you are particularly keen to recruit.)

Interestingly DS' University sits resolutely at the bottom of student satisfaction tables. However he could not be happier. I know they have done their best to improve things that can be improved, like open a new student centre, and review term structure and exam timing, but to some extent it is about being clear about their offer, and allowing prospective students to decide whether this fits with their individual aspirations .

From what I have heard Buckingham deserves its place at the top of the student satisfaction survey - but they have a very different offer. I am pretty sure DS would not have enjoyed it. And getting back to an earlier point, I also wonder what correlation you would get between low student satisfaction and a question asking "what influence did your parents have on your subject and University choice".

when you apply for medicine what is said on the website and in writing by admission staff is generally more generous than the decisions taken by those running the course. Basing decisions on published information can waste a choice. But when staff answer a question with "I dont know" and the colleague they call over gives the same answer you dont apply.

The things that attracted students - a good position in the league tables; clarity about what is required on grades; matching what the student wants, whether that is campus or city centre or good clubs or excellent sports facilities; friendly people to chat to who are proud of their university but not arrogant; attempts to show them what they would do/ where they would study; good libraries; cheap accommodation. But at the open day it will be a gut feel about the place and I really dont know why one student comes away enthusiastic and another dislikes the place when they mostly saw/talked to the same people.

Students tend not to look at satisfaction surveys but I did and found it informative to see the response when staff/students were asked about anything that was rated poor. Attempting to explain away the results by saying small numbers didnt impress, saying we dont understand why (student looking genunely puzzled) did as did we have taken these steps to address it. In at least one case I am aware of a genuine reason for poor satisfaction and students who ignored that and went to the university regretted it.

The information that we had gleaned from student satisfaction surveys etc for the Unis my DC have attended do seem to correlate to their actual experiences. I think they are worthwhile. It doesn't mean you should slavishly adhere to what they say but they are certainly a help in knowing what to expect from a university.

It's also worth contemplating the thought that a good challenging curriculum and teaching might just cause students to be "dissatisfied" in the terms in which the NSS deals (it's an awful survey - I've heard Stats professor colleagues tear it to shreds as a research tool).

Deep learning is difficult and causes one to be frustrated.

It's also worth contemplating the thought that a good challenging curriculum and teaching might just cause students to be "dissatisfied" in the terms in which the NSS deals.

This, in bucket loads.

The best scoring courses in my subject are those that have dumbed down the subject beyond recognition.

Bear in mind also that NSS rankings are made according to statistically insignificant variations in scores. We have calculated that our department could jump or fall twenty placings in the rankings for many questions based on mildly changing the responses of less than 5% of students replying.

I agree that in some cases NSS scores do correctly pick up on issues in given departments but without insider knowledge I would not be confident of this.

Oh, I meant the higher level NSS scores by department, comparing across institutions not within institutions. I totally agree, there are real limitations with NSS (in addition to those mentioned, it tends to reproduce biases in the student body, re: women, racism etc which is really worrying). However, I do think that a department that is scoring in the 50/60%s overall when others are in the 80s/90s probably does have some issues, even allowing for the limitations.

If I was a prospective student, I don't think I'd be too impressed by a university with lower scores suggesting that it was because everyone else had dumbed down the curriculum. If you take a subject where the subject matter is the same at every university, like medicine , there are still significant variations across universities.

So I'd be asking why some Brighton, Cardiff and Dundee can score 95-97 % overall satisfaction with the course when it's 75% at Cambridge and 78% at edinburgh. Yes of course, Cambridge and Edinburgh will fill their places because supply outstrips demand. But it would definitely influence my decision.

One question DC failed to ask at open days because they didn't even know it was a thing, was about access to lectures online and lecture notes. If they were looking now that would be a deal breaker.
A massively helpful revision tool.
One DC has absolutely everything available digitally and finds it incredibly useful to re-watch lectures afterwards in order to take detailed notes.
The other DC has almost none. In fact this one is at a uni ranked in the top few for the subject but some lecturers not only don't film the lecture they don't provide notes either. Hard luck if you are ill and miss a lecture.

That's an excellent point, Wandaback. Being able to review lectures is a huge step forward in university education.

However, I do think that a department that is scoring in the 50/60%s overall when others are in the 80s/90s probably does have some issues, even allowing for the limitations.

I would agree with that. But in my own subject this is simply not the spread of scores seen. Many departments have scored that are clustered very closely together, ranging over 40 or so places in the tables.

Medicine is teaching the same material at roughly the same level everywhere. This is simply not true for many subjects. I would absolutely love to see external (international) assessment of the level of courses/assessment material/marking included in league tables. (On the other hand this would be almost impossible to do without wasting a lot more time and money on such assessments.)

And a few anecdotes: at my own institution (very occasionally) and (more often) at the places where I am an external examiner, students from lower tariff entry institutions transfer in after doing very well in their first years.

Students who were getting 80+% in a mid tariff university rarely manage above 60% at the higher tariff university. They find the level of the work an enormous step up, even though in principle the degrees are meant to be comparable.

This may well not be the same across all subjects but, again, I would welcome external assessment of the true level of courses because it could counter dumbing down and grade inflation.

The modules and lectures my son has been dissatisfied aren't the difficult ones though but the ones where he finds the lecturer is worse than his lecture notes or where he gets frustrated that the exam bears no relation to what they were taught or told to read and understand.
He is picking his modules for his next semester as much by who is teaching it as what the subject is.
I remember the same from my uni days. Some people are far better at teaching than others, they tended to be enthusiastic as well and good at giving feedback and wanting you to get in to the subject, and our good feedback went for the good teaching.
Other lecturers may be eminent in their field but useless at teaching or communicating their enthusiasm.

user - yes, I've not thought about that much before, but I think you must be right that the different kinds of pedagogic practice required by different disciplines play a role! There may well be a broader range of practices in some disciplines than in others, and in some it may be almost impossible to adopt anything like universal standards, while in others this is more straightforward because curricula are closer.

I suppose parity of teaching standards/assessment is slightly different from parity in areas like NSS, though. I tend to think students are not very well placed at all to judge the intellectual merits or demerits of a course (I doubt if this is even possible for PhD students to be honest). I do, however, think they can feed back on simpler, softer things like how well supported they feel, how quickly work is marked and how valuable feedback is for their own progress etc etc etc Those things are REALLY important for their experience.

On a fogeyish note (for which I should probably be handed my pipe and slippers) I want to end with a lament on how divorced teaching is from the intellectual/research end of business! I do sometimes look back at old lecture courses that people gave in the twentieth century, which delivered their cutting-edge and often incredibly difficult thinking to undergraduate groups and marvel how times have changed.

(user - re: grades that's the scandal isn't it? We all know it's true, but no-one is going to speak out).

Other lecturers may be eminent in their field but useless at teaching or communicating their enthusiasm.

In my subject (and in higher tariff institutions) there is actually a very direct correlation between research and teaching scores. It is a bit of myth that good at research relates to being useless at teaching. People who are poor at communicating don't survive in cutting edge research, and can't generate research income.

shovetheholly: in my subject there are low tariff institutions that are still teaching A level material well into the second and occasionally into the third year. It's not just grade inflation that is the problem..

Students who were getting 80+% in a mid tariff university rarely manage above 60% at the higher tariff university. They find the level of the work an enormous step up, even though in principle the degrees are meant to be comparable

We find this - not so much undergrads transferring in (we don't accept them), but people "stepping up" institution at Masters level. Most of our 3rd year undergrads are more knowledgeable and academically able than Masters students from post-92 universities.

I don't think is because those students are necessarily less fundamentally intelligent, just that they've not been pushed.

Often because they're being taught by staff not quite at the leading edge of research ...

I want to end with a lament on how divorced teaching is from the intellectual/research end of business! I do sometimes look back at old lecture courses that people gave in the twentieth century, which delivered their cutting-edge and often incredibly difficult thinking to undergraduate groups and marvel how times have changed

Move over on the old fogey sofa (although I really am old-ish).

One year, student feedback in a big lecture course I run included the comment "She was arrogant & patronising and kept telling us about books we hadn't read."

Well, duh, that's my job.

And rather underlines the research (from US and France) that student evaluations of teaching are more accurate in reflecting student bias against women and non-white/non-native speakers than effective teaching.

Oh gosh, that is so depressing about your vindictive student evaluation, Virgil. I've had a student ask me "Is this relevant?" because we were talking about a different book to the one that was set for the week!! I try to push back quite strongly on this stuff now and cheerfully tell them they ought to be aiming to emerge from university with a Da Vinci style breadth of knowledge and LOVE for lots of subjects, not just a series of bullet points that they can puke up at appropriate examination intervals. One of DH's colleagues coined the term 'Marksists' for the grade-obsession that threatens this, which tickled me no end.

The lovely thing about bright youngsters is that quite often when you raise the bar gently and supportively, they can and will jump higher. I used to work somewhere with decent, long individual tutorials and I loved being able to help the first years to stretch their limits. It's like watching leaves unfurling in the spring!

I ABSOLUTELY agree with you about that bias in individual student evaluations. The way that the knowledge and expertise of female staff is often questioned, when the knowledge and expertise of male staff is not, is outrageous. And I've seen overtly racist things put down as well, which is heartbreaking, and certainly confirms the research that says there is bias in those results too.

I think all you lovely professionals are now giving us the reasons why many "top" employers like the "top" universities! Despite what some say, they teach in greater depth to people who are largely intelligent and the grades actually mean something! Thank you for your honesty!

I think there has been too much negative judgement about the odd thing that is wrong. There are very few weekends available so clashing open says would be worse than ever. People seem hugely intolerant and it is best to go to an open day with an open mind and not a narrow vision of what you must have - tick box attitude.

Students volunteer for open days. They are normally happy to do it. Obviously sniggering is rude but if everyone wanted 5 minutes discussing literature, what would actually happen to any timetable? Perhaps the students have seen it all before? Of course most students should be interested in the course, but usually the web sites do have details on how a degree is taught. Is the minutae of the timetable really necessary on an open day? I guess it is impossible to please all the people all of the time, but I guess you knew that OP!

One of DH's colleagues coined the term 'Marksists' for the grade-obsession that threatens this, which tickled me no end.
Well, that alone has made this thread worth reading. I hope to be able to leverage this into a conversation. Obviously, fully referenced.

This took me back to my own visits (about 30 years ago). I'm afraid I chose my university purely on my walk through the city. I fell in love with Bath, and after that, didn't give two hoots about the content of the open day - or even the course! I hope my DS makes a more thoughtful choice over the coming months... However, having talked to others, I think it's often intangibles that seem to make the difference.

town, course, job prospects all important and of course the grades needed. this would have all been researched before the open day.

mainly it was just getting a feel for the place, the city and the people met. I attended 3 of the open days, my son all 4 and he decided on the one i didn't attend. mainly because of the people he met - we already knew it was a good course and uni.

Bristol - they didn't even bother sending along anyone from his subject area - not even a similar topic. so we ended up talking to a maths tutor. left feeling that they actually weren't especially bothered/were complacent and we had no-one to sell the place to us anyway. so he didn't even put it on his list

However, having talked to others, I think it's often intangibles that seem to make the difference

I think this thread alone reveals that. And that almost every poster has suggested something different & in contradiction to other posters ...

I remember a thread here ages ago (I lurked under another name) of someone's DD who made a spur of the moment, last-minute decision to go to a university simply because she'd met some lads on holidays, & they recommended the place as a "party town" for students. IIRC, the last-minute change was to a far less challenging place & with very ;limited accommodation options.

I often wonder if that worked out ...

But it just shows that university staff - academic & administrative - can bust a gut, give up their weekends & family time, talk themselves hoarse, patiently explain & re-explain, try tactfully to deal with helicoptering and/or sharp-elbowed parents, and - candidates will still make seemingly irrational choices.