.jpg)
Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 39, Number 18, July 26, 1976.
Students Analyse......And Criticise
Students Analyse......And Criticise
The following are comments from students on their courses and departments. Ail contributions and discussion from either staff or students are welcome.
Law
Law Faculty
The Law Faculty Club recently organised a meeting for students to discuss course-related problems. Forty attended and most speakers expressed dissatisfaction with the present system. Reasons included workloads, assessment and the seeming point lessness of trying to get any sense out of the Department.
A senior club member said no useful impact would be made on the Department unless it could be shown that a good proportion of students support reform.
With the doubtful proposition in mind the meeting adjourned for three weeks to draft some suggestions to put before the second-year students (why not everybody?). Those proposals which met with broad assent would be taken up with the department.
Naturally not more than 20 of the 30 who turned up at the second meeting were second year students. Relatively little material had been prepared in advance and nothing much of a concrete nature was decided. Even so there was consensus on -
Student Involvement: Daunting though it is, and effort should be made to get students involved to some degree in reform. For or against, but involved. One problem is that if were not too sure why we're studying the law we're not going to be too motivated to take action on other topics we're not sure we believe in either. The meeting felt that students do care about what's going on but don't see what they can do about it. The constant pressure of case readings and opinions with finals lurking in the background seems to preclude any other constructive activity in the university environment beyond worrying about deadlines.
Assessment: The present method is unsatisfactory. Some of us favoured total internal assessment: others finals; others the right of option (what about abolishing assessment?). We want the law department to tell us again why we're stuck with the finals-only system. We want open debate on this matter. We want to know what the staff feel and why. We didn't care much for terms requirements [unclear: eitn]
Staff-Student Relationships: [unclear: It] was [unclear: elt] that despite the present situation, staff and students should all be in this together. Too many of us define staff as those who suppress and/or confuse us for unknown reasons. Maybe staff have some justification in stereotyping us as stupid and/or lazy. We suggest that the barriers be dismantled and want to talk with staff about how.
Teaching: What, please, are we actually supposed to be learning here?
There have been developments. From [unclear: cussions] with individual staff members [unclear: apparent] some of them are concerned [unclear: a] Professor Palmer has offered to give over [unclear: Torts] class of Wednesday 28 July to an [unclear: en] forum. All law students are urged to [unclear: in] us [E006, 11 am]. Other staff [unclear: members] will also be present to participate [unclear: a] [unclear: ur] is not nearly enough so Union Hall [unclear: as] been tentatively booked for noon on [unclear: ne] last Wednesday of the term - just in [unclear: ase] there's more for us to talk about.
Let's not blow it!
'Socratic Sanity - '77?
1. Unconstructive pressure in one course, whether for reasons of 'filtering' or a dogmatic belief in a particular teaching 'style', can and does [unclear: puce] adverse stress in the student which affects the work in that course, [unclear: a en] work in other courses in which [unclear: iously] satisfactory results were bring obtained.
2. Law is an introduction and skill not only for practice, but also for commerce, administration, and as a valuable mental framework for other social science disciplines.
Law faculty should set its standards, ther aim to have, and encourage, as many students as possible to pass.
It is the student's responsibility to find a job, whether in private practice. Government legal departments, administration, or commerce, etc.
Law passes should not be governed by the fluctuating fortunes of private firms' conveyancing.
Law skills of analysis, distinguishing, constructing and criticising legal arguments are something that needs on-going instruction - not just the Legal System "lick-anda-promise". And encouragement - not mere unconstructive criticism or abuse.
4. No discipline has one, 'received', theory. The insistence on students 'discovering' their lecturer's view of theory, and falling into line with it, offers neither time nor opportunity to theorise for oneself, and have those theories constructively argued. The non-constructive criticising acts as a "clobbering machine".
5. Lecturers are still students. Even the least knowledgeable, least sophisticated, present student has some insight to contribute. The skillful, professional teacher is the one who can create the sympathetic climate to encourage that student to make that contribution. [Education: to draw out from].
6. Finally: "Stress Teaching is Mess Teaching". Mass teaching we must put up with, both students and lecturers. Mess teaching neither of us need.
[unclear: -] Tim Hart
Sociology
The Sociology Department
The Sociology Department has been plagued with troubles this year - the Sosc debate, the rumblings in 301 etc. Although these are seperate events, they are all compounded by the reluctance of the department to listen and discuss openly the very real gripes of the students, whatever they are. For example, in 301, the course continued to be taught although staff and students both were aware that it was failing. Students finally demanded that the course be immediately re-examined. The situation should never have been allowed to arise. Constant review and re-assessment of every sociology course is both desirable and crucial: in it's content and the way it is taught.
The opportunity must be there for students to express the way they react to the courses they take. This can only be achieved when students particpate in all departmental committees with equal power and are regarded as part of the sociology department. This is desirable as the students are the only ones who can really ask the crucial questions of the department who have let these slip away in an attempt to concentrate on the churning out of reasonably competant 'B.A. sociologists'.
Additionally, the department must pay more than lip service to the ethical considerations of the material they are teaching. By this I mean the sociology of sociology, the problem of knowledge etc. This should be integrated through all courses to counter the production of sociological shadow boxers. Sociologists not only study society, they also affect it - and sociology students must be made aware of the power it possesses.
These type of questions must be debated in a critical way in lectures and tutorials. Students must have channels to criticise approaches to the discipline. This can be done with staff on the departmental committees and in periods devoted to these questions, and those of assessment etc in the lectures.
Only in this way can the sociology department (staff and students) attain a high standard of critical and rigourous sociology.
— David Murray
Sosc Lecturer Comments
Dear Sir,
Christine Chan's useful report on the previous week's Sosc 301 Staff/Student meeting conveys an unfortunate picture of the aims of 301 pracs - probably because I didn't explain it fully. The methods component of the course is Richard Bowman's responsibility - and he apparently must go unreported. Sosc 301 pracs are in two sections this year, both concerned with teaching the sequence of basic skills underlying all systematic social research (i.e. surveys, systematic observation, a content analysis).
The 1st section consists of straightforward prac exercises designed to provide students with a smattering of chances to actually practise the skills together with the other 2 goals of each prac as mentioned by Chris.
The 2nd section involves options in which some skill - in most cases data analysis - is developed in more depth. I think the main pity is that the 1st developed in more depth. I think the main pity is that the 1st section wasn't out of the way earlier so that students had more time to work on the 2nd section, which Chris might be pleasantly surprised to find, is not only planned but is starting operation.
Yours,
Charles Crothers.
Commerce
Recent Goings on in the Commerce Faculty
The rumbles of change can at last be heard, but you may not hear them unless you have sharp ears. As some students will already know, the faculty ammended and updated its policies towards assessment at a recent sitting. An attempt is being made to increase flexibility of assessment methods; to increase communication and discussion between staff and students about assessment methods; and to alleviate some of the present problems (i.e. excessive workloads, beaks and troughs in workloads etc).
It is often said that such faculty decisions (particularly over such things as assessment) are effectively useless. The argument being action speaks louder than words, but that this policy has yet to be implemented. Further, whatever faculties decide, it is still up to individuals to implement them. More than one imported academic has told me that Vic is the most conservative campus they've ever been on. However..... in this instance things can be prompted a little bit. The way and the speed things change depends as much on Students as on Staff, because communication and changing attitudes is a two way process. So all you milling masses, if you want anything done, do it yourselves.
Another 'goings on' which merits student attention is the proposal by the Accountancy Dept to drop two courses Accy 211, 212. This may not strike you as earth shattering news, but there are two important reasons why they should not be dropped As well as one good reason why they should not be dropped. As well as one good reason why they should.
.jpg)
Do you feel as if you are up against the wall?
First of all Accy 211, 212 are alternate core requirements with Accy 101,102. So everyone wishing to do a BCA will have to do Accy 101, 102. However these two courses are already overloaded in student numbers. Any increase in numbers would make them unmanagable. [This year there were about 350 students, but only 1 stream of lectures].
In anticipation of dropping the courses, the accy dept has talked of limiting their student intake. They have not said how, but in our supposedly egalitarian education system, this would a bad president and a retrograde step.
Secondly, students doing a BCA, and not majoring in accountancy would definitely be effected. In the BCA requirements there are 12 unspecified credits (you can do almost anything you want). There are also the usual requirements about how many 100, 200, 300 level courses you have to do. If all students had to do 101, 102 then the BCA requirements would mean the 12 unspecified credits would have to be done at 200 level. This would make studies outside of the faculty (e.g. in Anthro, or even sociology) well nigh impossible. This would be a step backwards.
There is a good reason why the dept wants to drop the courses - human resources. The Accy Department has the highest ratio of students to staff of any department in the varsity. Unless more staff are found soon (and this costs money remember) they just won't have the resources to handle the ever increasing student numbers. Its a 'sad story'.
The final decision to scrap these courses has not yet been made. I think more positive answers to the Accountancy department's should be found. The student reps voiced their disapproval, along with others at the last faculty meeting. Since it has not been finalised I would like to hear comments from BCA students who would be affected by this, or who are doing Accy 102/212 at the moment.
- Jon Grainer
Pol Sci
Political Science
This article concerns itself about the political science part of the School of Political Science and Public Administration, it being unfair in the writers opinion to downgrade a field which already accepts its limitations.
The average student of Pol Sci enters the department with some notion that there exists a phenomena called politics [unclear: and] displays desire to develop that notion, [unclear: t] would thus be in the interests of the student if the department's main aim was to fulfil this desire.
page 7
Aparenlly the department agrees. In its 1976 prospectus it states that "...the programme of courses is designed to serve as a basis for the discussion, analysis and assessment and understanding of a broad spectrum of Political ideas."
These commendable aims are however totally absent from Pols courses this year. The problem lies in three areas, each of which bears some relation to the others.
| 1. | Staff Prejudice - for years now the department has been under the control of hard line structuralists who refuse to concede that Politics exists outside the Governmental (sic!) institutions. Their main antagonists in recent times, the empiricists, suffer from the same limited vision. If they can't see it - it ain't political. The differences between the two seems to have reinforced their mutual distaste of any contrary ideas. |
| 2. | Anti-Political Nature - The department states that it does not seek to promote ideological points of view. In fact those viewpoints are actively discouraged to the point where students, under the limitations imposed by restrictive departmental perception: are unable to see politics as having any ideological content at all. I as-sure the department that Marx, Nixon, Mill and co., were not the eunuchs you set out to make your students. |
| 3. | Assessment - In POLS is apparently based upon the students acceptance of his teachers biases. It may come as some surprise to the POLS department that "rocking the boat' is what social science is all about - testing by criticism. Both exams and internal assessment have been severely criticised of late yet the workload of all POLS courses consists entirely of a crushing compromise between the two. An examination is a great device for cramming course content into an easy (for the teacher) form. What he/she wants is in it, what you think isn't Assessment by essay is no better - it places a great emphasis on the student to conform and pass. |
What then is the problem? It would seem that staff-student interaction is definitely a one way process. Politics, as defined by the largest POLS department in New Zealand is here to stay, and if you don't like it - change your major or go to another university. That at least is what several students have done and some lecturers as well.
| 1) | Reduction of assessable workload so that students can develop their own interests in specific areas. |
| 2) | Students representation on all departmental committees and adequate reporting of all departmental decisions. |
| 3) | Removal of ideological 'blackouts' by the department. |
The inability of POLS to satisfy its students should be worrying the department but it isn't. One possible reason is that students have not made them aware that a problem exists - or may be POLS department hasn't got the time to listen.
The time is right for a full review of all POLS courses - before the same mistakes are made next year.
- Neil Gray
History
Critique of History Courses.
211 Renaissance Europe
215 American History
315 The Life of the Mind of America.
HIST 211 (Renaissance)
Course Content; is the equivalent of a fast gallop through the zillion interacting aspects of the Italian Renaissance" centuries. Lecturing was enthusiastic with an amazing continuity. This course generates real interest but often moves too fast for some minds.
Assessment; 2 essays and I exam. Supposedly the final mark is taken from the best marks but many wounded hearts would question this. This years exam was a stinker and what is more, we were lied to by 'the friendly Beagle' "It will be very much like last year" was his assurance. The choice was much narrower, cut down even further due to all of the final tutorials being cancelled because Mr Fairburn was ill. This exam was a ripp off, in many opinions. Apart from this twist in the tail, the course was remarkable.
HIST 215 (American)
Course Content; Lectures were largely sleep inducing but we found that we could get by on the prescribed reading. Tutorials were compulsory. This course definately allowed for in depth study in areas of interest. A good course by a liberal minded lecturer, no dogma, no pressure until the last weeks of the 'dirty assessment hitch' when the 'Research Topic' and the Test on tutorials hit at once. Deadly for insomniacs!
Assessment; 2 short essays, the best mark is taken.
1 research topic, not too straining until combined with
The Test (25%) based on God knows what from tutorials. We moaned about this, so it may not exist next year. This is a valuable course for the 'not so lazy' student.
HIST 315 (The Life of the Mind of America)
Course Content; So far, so good. Once again, leaves room for in depth work in favoured areas. This course is run in tutorial/seminar two hour sessions of lively debate presided over by two entertaining minds - Ms Bunkle and Mr Phillips, allowing an interaction of differing ideas. The workload is consistantly heavy.
Assessment; Once again, all internal, one essay, research topic and wait for it, the hitch, each tutorial we must hand in a summary of tutorial reading which is assessed. All in all though, the history department is a hundred times more relaxed than the English department and more liberal as regards interdepartmental liason and student opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Geography
Geography
Most of the criticism levelled at the Geography department this year have been directed at Geog. 303. This is not because Geog 303 is the only course that needs criticising but because it is easy for students to identify their disatisfaction with this course, which so far this year has basically been a mess. Because there has been so much discontent with Geog 303 and because many of the criticisms levelled at Geog 303 apply to other courses it is useful at this stage to review all the criticisms made so far.
The main criticism students have with Geog 303 is the lecturer's attitude to student opinion. When students criticised Geog 303, instead of taking the criticism constructively and working with students to improve the course (which must surely be the concern of the lecturer as well as the students) the lecturer took the criticisms personally. He also pleaded for students to come individually with complaints rather than together or God forbid, through Salient But if students don't discuss their course together they can't pinpoint the source of their disatisfaction and instead tend to internalise their discontent and drop-out Surely this isn't what the lecturer wants?
Some of the difficulties with Geog 303 have arisen because the lecturer normally responsible for the course for the first hall of the year (Dr Kirby) was ill during this term. In previous years Dr Kirby has given a broad introduction to Latin America (including an historical perspective) and then Prof Watters would give a more personal view specialising in specific areas.
This year Prof. Watters had to take the course for the first half of the year and instead of changing last year's notes students were subjected to very specialised knowledge, which they weren't prepared for. This shows the inflexibility of the department. Because the department failed to make provision for Dr Kirkby's absense when Watters went to Peru in the middle of term, students were left in the lurch for 6 weeks.
From the beginning of the course students have not only had no say as to how they are to be assessed but they have been in the dark as to exactly what the lecturer has decided for them. After changing his mind three times at the beginning of the year, students were finally left with a system of 30% internal assessment (a seminar of 12 minutes or a 1000 word essay, a personal interview, and a 1500 word essay All to be Completed for the First Half of the Course (and probably 2 or 3 essays for the second half of course) and a final exam worth 70%.
There are many criticisms that can be made of this method of assessment, as well as the fact that it was still not finalised, and in fact was changed again, at a later stage in the course.
All the hassles (which have affected both the students and the staff) could have been avoided if, at the beginning of the year, staff and students had discussed various methods of assessment and had come to some sort of consensus which would facilitate rather than hamper the learning process.
Evidence that student/staff discussion is productive can be seen by looking at the attitude of the physical geography lecturers. Throughout the year they have been sensitive to student opinion.
As we go to press there are several students in Geog. 304 who are worried about their workload. It is hoped that the lecturers in charge of this course will meet students to discuss and possibly cut, the workload.
— Four Geography Students
English
English Department
Dear Salient,
I was surprised to see Peter Hall wright take such a snotty attitude to the current discussion of assessment in the English Dept., especially considering he is a member of the course that is 92% in favour of some kind of change. I doubt if there is much support for his snarling.
Most people discover that their minds have turned to jelly by the arse-end of their literature degrees. I'm positive this is due to the 'approach' that is built into the present system, an approach that is barren of personal attention or social vision. Neither staff nor students are responsible for the fact that we live like solitary guinea pigs, sitting out lectures, scratching out essays, brazening out finals, in an effort to find value in some literature. Failure and fatigue are never seen as effects of the system, but rather points of individual cheapness. Both staff and students must strive for a system where there are two valves in neon lights; discussion, and the individual. Just because you're here for only three years, it doesn't mean you have to avoid examining the structures.
I laughed when I read that Peter would prefer to study 'Hamlet' instead of examining the way we live - I've read that play myself, and there's plenty of good parts that illustrate the dangers of burying ones hands along with the head, especially the parts with Polonius (and wait till you find out what happened to him).
If Peter Hall wright doesn't pull up his socks and take his hands out of his pockets, his life is bound to "lose the name of action."
— Martin Doyle
Tutorials
Tutorials
Tutorials are considered important at University. They are usually compulsory and essential for terms. But despite the importance placed on them by different departments, tuts are frequently unbeneficial to the student.
The major cause of tuts being a waste of time is the people in them. This is providing, of course, that the subject is interesting and deep enough for discussion. At university level it should be. But no matter what the subject is, it is up to the people in the tuts to make them worthwhile.
However, the people, be they tutor or student, usually lower the tuts worth through over-participation or under participation.
Over participation on the tutors part, is by being extremely aggressive when expounding and idea or criticising something. This results in the other tut members becoming intimidated to the point of silence. Sure, free discussion on alternatives is fine, but acceptance of others ideas, and expecially the acceptance of their right to state their view, is of prime importance.
Students can also over-participate in a tut by expounding their views on every subject all the time. They may be worth hearing, but so are the opinions of every other person. But nobody-can get a dialogue going because of this dominating monologue.
At the other extreme from dominating over participation is the apathetic under participation.
Once again this can be on the tutors part or can be done by the student. A good example of a tutors apathy, and so non participation is on page five of the 12 July Salient, in the geog. article. This boredom towards one's own subject by the tutor is appalling. Supposedly the university should be throbbing with intellectual keeness, but instead tutors are only there for the money, or the security. The politest thing to be said of these people is that a Muldoon cutback in Education should cut them out.
Under participation by the students can decrease a tuts benefit too. Students that can't be bothered to think, read, state their mind (even if it is that they don't want to be there) are a dead weight to the tutorial. Ideally a shot of idealism is needed by them, or some pluravit capsules, so that they do become involved in the tut.
So generally, too much or too little participation by tutorial members greatly detracts from the tut's benefits to subject understanding. Yet, tuts are still considered important for a students assessment. This anomoly can be overcome two ways. The first is the lessoning of the tutorials importance in gaining terms or a final grade. The second, and the most important way, is by people who are members of a tutorial group, to take an objective view on their involvement in the tut and then to do something about it.