page 3

Students Unite for Change

by Paul Swain

The way in which changes in Sociology 301 have been brought about could be useful to students in other courses. A common complaint is that students have little or no say in how they are taught and how they are assessed. If education is to be something more than sitting in lecture halls, taking down screeds of notes, and handing back these notes in exams, then the question of student participation in courses is an important one — just as important as the subject matter itself. An initial step in achieving this has been taken by the students in Sosc 301.

what we did

After the course had been under way for about three weeks, some people began to feel dissatisfied, not only with the way the course was being presented (boring, irrelevant, disjointed etc.), but also with the whole area of assessment. We weren't consulted on how we wanted to be assessed — the course was prescribed, and it was very much a "take it or leave it" policy. Consequently, a small group got together and decided to initiate a class discussion under three general headings — student representation, assessment and workloads.

The two main lecturers were approached, and they consented to give as much lecture time as was necessary to iron out these problems.

1.	The initial outcome of the meeting was that everyone seemed dissatisfied — which suggests that if you feel slacked off about your course, odds on most people feel the same way. People thought that it was important to have student reps at the departmental level, where decisions affecting department and courses are made. Two student reps were elected, their job being to take the feelings of the class to these meetings and report back on any decisions made.
2.	People also felt that the workload was excessive for a six credit course (3 pracs, 4 reports, 2 essays). Hence, together with staff, an alternative assessment system was worked out, aimed at i) Reducing the workload ii) Making the set work more relevant.
3.	The next stumbling block was a letter from the administration advising Sosc 301 that, as an exam had been entered in the "Little Pink Timetable", we were all required to sit an exam at the end of the year. Everyone was violently opposed to this, and the class reps set about constructing a case to get the admin, decision rescinded. After pointing out that the Pink Timetable was not binding, that other course assessments had been adhered to during the year, and that staff and students were opposed to this archaic form of assessment, the admin, dropped the case.
4.	A motion is to be put at SRC asking Prof. Board Reps to go into the question of the exam timetable.

why we did it

Firstly, evaluating what's being taught, how it's being taught and how people assess are all crucial questions. As is shown in Sosc 301, if people are brassed off with the course, this will hinder the learning process. Often, by asking these sorts of questions, a lot more can be learnt about the nature of the subject than by sitting passively and absorbing boring monologues.

Secondly, as we found in Sosc 301, staff and students need not be in opposition to each other. The fact that often they are seen to be in opposition is a product of "The teacher knows everything, the student knows nothing" idea. Some staff in 301 were keen to discuss the course with us — in the long term, it is is in the interests of both groups that this discussion takes place.

Thirdly, and most importantly, things don't get changed by individuals. In our case, we found that if people have a common complaint, and are prepared to stick together, then this in itself is a powerful bargaining force. But some organization is required if the force is to be effective.

Finally, before things can be changed, someone has to make the first move. Had a few people not taken the initial step in Sosc 301, we would all be doing meaningless assignments and sitting a boring, worthless exam at the end of the year.