Quick question to all of you out there:
If you were told you are no good at doing something that you had to pay a lot of money to pursue, and there was plenty of real evidence supporting this claim, would you continue to do it?
Surely, most of you will answer "no"?
So, why is it that when I give very strong advice to first year undergraduate students who have failed their first year that they should not consider repeating their first year again (costing them typically an extra £8000 if you include living costs and fees), they write to me a few days later, saying "I want to repeat first year again"!! Their chances of success are very low, yet they are prepared to pay thousands of pounds risking it!
If Sir Alex Ferguson offerred me a 6 month placement in Manchester costing £10k in which he gave me the chance of being picked for the first team if I was good enough, and at the end of the placement he may say something like: (Laughter, and a Scottish accent) "Richardson, you have three left feet, you can't kick the ball in a straight line, and you fall over when your grandmother breathes on you and you wouldn't play in my team for all the haggis in Scotland!", I think I would take the hint. BUT some of these undergrads just say the equivalent of: "Oh, Sir Alex - I can work harder and I can learn to score goals of the season and win trophies, really!" What does it take to get through to some of these people!?
IF ANYONE HAS ANY SUGGESTIONS PLEASE TELL ME QUICK BEFORE I GO MAD!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I have just seen an almost identical situation but involving the progression from MChem to PhD. The candidate (whom I sure will not be reading this, but will remain anonymous) felt pressured into finding PhD, despite, and in contrary to, strong advice from a number of people including myself and a very experienced Professor. I’m sure the student did this, and your first year is repeating for the same reason, because all their friends/colleagues did it. This student would have been the only MChem from their little clique not to do a PhD and the pressure to continue overrode all evidence of common sense/advice/ability to the contrary! I wouldn’t be surprised if your first year is more afraid of being left out/different than they are about staying on for educational, social or any other reason.
I can’t suggest a solution but it may offer a different insight into the thought process of the students.
P.s. 140 students!!! I thought my year was big when 70 of us pitched up.
Good insight, Ben. I'll bear this in mind when I preach to them in future. Peer pressure is tremendously powerful even when you're in your forties! I am beginning to believe that 2 years National (but not military) Service at 18-20 years old followed by 2 year intense degrees delivered by teaching-based experts (leaving we researchers to focus on the wonderful world of monolayers) will put the work ethic back in British undergraduates and set the country up for a better 21st century than is currently on the cards! Another shift towards the right appears to be coming my way! If only I could risk saying what I really think of all this "access"-based, opportunity-giving half-baked education that Universities are being forced to deliver these days. Too risky though - the VC might be reading this blog!
Mike Gibbs (and he won't mind me saying this) once told me that I wasn't good enough to do the 4 year MPhys course (admittedly following some pretty shoddy 2nd year exam results!!). So I got a 2:1 and stayed on for a PhD just to prove him wrong.
It depends on a combination of effort and ability. Bright Lazy people can improve and you can normally tell if they fall into this category after a short conversation. Hard working, not so bright people on the other hand will be achieving their potential already and should be strongly encouraged not to resit anything.
As far as providing university education for all, I could not agree with you more Tim. They are supposed to be centres of excellence, yet universities consistently offer places on courses that will provide no future economic benefit to the students, university or country.
The potential job market should drive the type of courses on offer and not the whim of idealist 18 year old who wants to spend 3 years in the pub.
Rant over...
Col
Tim, your comments about a more old-fashioned approach tempt me to reminisce about my own studentship. This was at a "yellow-brick" university (Leicester), beginning in 1960. The department was not large: we started with approximately 28 students in "Special Physics". If you failed any subject just once, that was it: you might have had a chance at the "General" degree, but Special Physics was out. There were NO repeats of ANY kind; even failing the practical examination had the same result.
If I remember correctly, 2% went to University (that figure could be wrong, but certainly it was quite small compared to today). The entry required three high grades at A-level (not all grade A, because that was too unusual); and at the end of the course only about 14 out of 28 got a Special Physics degree (with only one first and two upper seconds).
I realise the problems that result from students paying their own fees, for example, but the simple fact is that it should be the examination board that decides if a student CAN resit, NOT the student. Most importantly, if the consequences of a certain degree of failure were irredeemable, then perhaps such failures would be a little less frequent?
I beg to differ regarding the use of "Teaching Experts". The really important thing is not to impart knowledge, but a method of thought and creativity using that knowledge. Perhaps some sections of the course can justifiably be set aside for non-researchers, but unless the students are exposed to the best and liveliest research minds, how can they hope to acquire relevant skills such as the synthesis of disparate material in solving a problem that requires them to cross boundaries? You may answer "when doing an MSc or PhD", but I think it might then be to late: the students must be able to use basic physics actively and creatively before they can even rationally contemplate a PhD.
You may retort that I am out of date regarding the quality of intake; but the point is this: that at least a good fraction of staff interacting with students need to be teaching experts as well as researchers. Then they can get the best from the students.
I spent 30 years making silk purses out of sows' ears, so I should know!
Post a Comment