Anybody else dramatically failed their 1st year?
- Thread starter Defcon5
- Start date
w11tho said:
Do you live in cambridge, where abouts?
Well getting used to being away from home, learing how the uiversity system works, making mates ect. Its not as if three years is that long tbh. I think its more a proplem that you are only at uni for 6 months of the year, whathe point in that
?Main problem I have is to do more than enough. I only ever seem to do enough revision to get a pass. Hopefully this attitude will change next year when it will actually count towards my degree.daz said:Thing is with maths or physics there's no chance of blagging anything - you either know the material or you don't. Trying to revise for an exam the night or even a couple of nights before is really no good because you just need to practice doing problems and past papers over and over. If you've never had the feeling of looking at a series of questions and having no idea of where to go or how to even get started... then you're a very lucky (clever) person.
Then our opinions on the matter differ wildly. I believe the government is conning people into believing higher education is the way to go. If I proposed 50% of all 18yr olds should aim to play county level sport, I'd be laughed at - not enough people are natural athletes. But suggest that 50% should enter hihger education, suddenly every man and his dog is going off for a degree in gardening studies, surfing technology etc etc. Because of the shear lack of academic ability of a lot of the people going to University, courses have to tailor the material to an appropriate level - ultimately handing out qualifications that mean very little.Spamalot said:
Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses - to suggest that for such a large proportion, one of those strengths lies in academia, is absolutely ludicrous.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 5,211
- Location
- Dartford, Kent
^ i couldnt have agreed more! and i think that is the best wording ive seen it put too.
Spamalot said:You spell that subjects.
No.
Syllabi or Syllabuses - I mean within a subject, not everybody has studied exactly the same things. For instance, when I did A-level Maths, I did 2 units of statistics, a unit of discrete maths and 3 units of pure, whereas other people had done 3 units of pure and 3 units of mechanics, for example.
The teaching at University should be waaaay beyond the level found at A-Level. The University course should be for those who have previously excelled in their subject. While I don't know a lot about computer science, I'd been led to believe that a computing A-Level was anything but essential - Mathematics being a far more important factor. And if you haven't got the qualifications before hand, then the course isn't for you.Psyk said:
I'm sorry, but that sounds stupid. If someone has a year out, and forgets a lot of stuff, then that's their problem. It's not upto the University to slow everyone else down so they can catch up. And with regards to the differences in syllabi (which are minimal), the extra knowledge could be covered in a matter of lectures, not weeks (and certainly not terms). It's most definitely not a god enough reason to spend an entire year teaching material that should have already been covered. The entrance requirements should be there for a reason - so everyone who enters the course has a very similar level of knowledge and ability (with these levels differing vastly at different institutions).daz said:Many people have a gap year, many people go to university doing different A-level syllabi (sp?) - there are many reasons why the first year is easy, and then there's a big step up to the second and third year.
Trumpington Street, near Peterhouse.Spamalot said:
w11tho said:
What's the problem with that?
It's not like Clifford Chance are going to start hiring people with such degrees is it? Getting as many people to University as possible is only a good thing. There is a chance they will earn more money. If they don't then so be it.
Just because a lot more people now go to University and get rubbish degrees, it doesn't mean that law, mathematics and science degrees will be devalued.
The problem is that lots of students leave these degrees with little more than they would have 3yrs previous. They'd been led to believe higher education is the way. If, however, they'd been advised more appropriately in school, they might have made far better use of their time, not got into a lot of debt, and have trained in an appropriate area. Not only that, but there is a massive amount of government money/subsidies that go towards these degrees - money that could be much better spent elsewhere.Jet said:
Well the programming does go beyond what you would get in a computing A-level, but they start with the basic stuff from it. The only reason A-level computing isn't essential in any way is because they have to assume you haven't done it since lots of people won't have.w11tho said:
w11tho said:
No need to apologise, I should have made myself more clear. It's in a university's best interests to get as many people through a course and doing well as possible. Thus the entry requirements and general admissions process is designed to get people who will be suitable for the course.
The first year is there to give every a solid foundation to the next two years of the course. When you need to be using certain skills, day in day out in a course (i'm talking maths or other sciences here) it is important that you are confident in your skills and can use them effectively. For a university to make sure that everybody can do this before stepping up the difficulty level is just prudent.
The only problem I can see with this system, is that a lot of people are caught out by the difficulty jump between first and second years. Lots of people breeze through a-levels and their first year of university with no problems and without putting in very much work - when all of a suddent they discover that talent and intelligence alone won't get them through their degree, but that they will need to work sufficiently too.
No, that's far from the only option. My solution would be to send only those who should really be extending their education to University, then we would save massive amounts. I certainly don't think an increase in tuition fees is the way.Spamalot said:
I have no problem with people wishing to further their knowledge. But if they want to do it using government subsidies, then I would insist that they have at least some talent in their chosen area.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 1,872
- Location
- hell
Im failing second year Physics
I had 2 retakes in first year, had to do them in the summer (although i averaged 55% overall in that year)
I had 2 retakes in first year, had to do them in the summer (although i averaged 55% overall in that year)
w11tho said:
Well with freedom of choice surly it should be up to the individual if they want to go to university. If they had to pay more then they would be forced to do a subject that would have higher earning after they finish instead of wasting time and money doing a subject where graduates are not needed. People would also have to be more dedicated if courses cost more.
Or, of course, the material is ammended to suit the people on the course (hence the total non-uniformity of degrees from different institutions).daz said:
But these skills should be already assumed. And if you haven't got a grasp of those skills, then you shouldn't be there. You didn't spend your first 6 months of A-Levels going over GCSE material so your were "confident in your skills". You were taught new material from the start (although, with all these new modules etc, you begin to wonder).daz said:
They shouldn't have to wait until the second year!?!?! Why should a University spend an entire year teaching basic material? Why not get it out of the way quickly, and get onto the proper material. Why spend anytime on it at all? If the course was advertised as needing an A in A-Level Physics, then they are at liberty to assume that all those on the course are familiar with the course, and have the ability to gain an A grade. If people start falling behind, then bugger me, they're going to have to pull up their socks, get out a book or two and get stuck in.daz said:
All this dumbing down is exacly what's wrong, IMHO. And it's a direct consequence of sending far too many people to University.
I hoped that.hendrix said:
Here I am in my 4th year trying to revise something the night before. This one may be a re-sit. If they'll let me have one. Fun and games...
It has taken me a year of general engineering (2 re-sits), one year of electronic engineering (another 2 re-sits), a year out working in industry (it didn't work out with the first company, but I had a very happy 9 months in the second), and half of this year to realise that engineering really isn't for me. I am so bored and unmotivated, it's untrue.
However dogged determination spurs me on to at least complete this year and get my BEng (in whatever class I can manage), before skipping out early (the course is supposed to be a 5-year MEng with Year in Industry). Then I plan to go into design for media and/or post production.