You are reading a single comment by @deleted and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@deleted
Oliver, I absolutely concur with your point about the fallacy of the influence of genes. I brushed it aside because I was actually disappointed to learn that Mr. Woodhead had said it (although from my experiences of the fellow, it was probably an ill-timed offhand remark).
Ross + Plurabelle, I think you're discussing one of the most difficult issues of higher education. If it's fed to you on a plate, how is it distinguished from further education, but if it is left up to the student, how do you make sure they actually do anything?
And more importantly, is it ok to let a student drift through university without really attempting to learn anything?
I hate to keep harking on about it (really I do), but the answer, yet again, is money in my opinion. It is possible to strike a happy medium between the two, and it is very simple.
Markyboy's experience of higher education is markedly different to mine (and I'm guessing yours, Ross), because there was a clear line drawn. If you don't pass this, you fail. This works well for Bsc/Msc degrees, but it's much much harder to implement on BAs, because of their subjective nature.
For BAs the answer really is money. Money to pay for tutor hours to encourage discourse exactly like what we're having right now. Lectures are important, but there should be a greater emphasis put on the facilitation of discussion, both between students and staff.
My course is hiding behind this issue. It says, in defence of the cuts in tutor hours etc, that HE is about peer-to-peer learning. They call it** Autodidacticism.**
Which is the gayest, shittest term I've ever heard (when used in this context). They say that it's one of the most important thigns for us to achieve. The term refers to an individual's ability to self-teach, essentially. Which begs the question, what is the point of any of the tutors, or any of the administrators? Why don't you fire all of them, and leave us alone for 95% of the term with the money being spent on materials and library books, instead of administrator's wages?
In my view, peer-to-peer learning and autodidacticism are useful and important parts of an HE course, but both of them can exist without the course. If the course exists, then it needs to provide input from people who know more than the students. Not solely in the form of lectures, but in far more informal ways as well. The students need to actually seek these people out, but the tutors need actually be there. In my course's case, they simply aren't. They'll be in Ramsgate, or Paris.