University Contact Hours

Yesterday, a friend of mine posted the following article from The Guardian on Facebook:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...-a-rotten-deal

My friend's response was one of incredulity. So too, I must admit, was mine.

The basic gist of the article is that English Lit students recieve a bum deal over university because they have pretty much the lowest level of contact hours with members of staff - in this particular example, the student says that she has to rely on sparknotes rather than limited tutorial discussion to prepare her for her exams.

Speaking as a university tutor, this rather irritated me: this silly twit seems to want to be spoon-fed the answers, instead of doing actual research and analysis. On the other hand, it is true that contact time is very limited; here at Durham, students at levels two and three have only four one-hour tutorials per year in each module - this means that I, as a tutor, have to decide on a very limited number of texts from all the ones on the module to cover in our limited time together.

So what do you all think? How much priority should be given to contact hours at university? Given how much they are paying these days, do students have a right to be 'taught' the answers?

Well I would have thought the nature of literature-based degrees naturally call for more emphasis on independent research over science-based degrees. This probably accounts for the difference in contact time and probably therefore a comparison between them is a little fruitless. Especially if you take into account things like field trips. A couple of friends of mine did geology/environmental degrees and were always away on field trips naturally - this sort of thing obviously bumps up the 'contact time.' Regardless, I don't think the right approach is to look at 'contact hours' as the way to test the quality of the degree. Overall I think you need a healthy balance of teaching and independent work. I couldn't put a number of hours on that, it depends on the degree and the modules, level etc, but I don't think looking at a completely different degree and matching those hours is the answer.

In the example I don't see why the student has to turn to spark notes as if there is nothing in between teaching or spark notes. Are there no other books in the library at Oxford? This just sounds like a poor argument or self-pitting use of rhetoric to me. Spark notes are only really good enough for A-level or at the very base level of the degree to jog the memory etc, it's not as if you can quote spark notes in an essay.

The cost shouldn't be a factor in term of contact time. The argument that a student is paying more so should haven't to do any work is not an argument. I'm not saying I agree with tripling of the cost, far from it, but the cost shouldn't alter how something is taught or you just might as well buy degrees and don't bother with the reading and learning.

I'm not sure how to comment on this since the UK university system is substantially different from the North American one. At my university an undergraduate literature course typically involves two 50 minute lectures, provided by a professor, and a one hour tutorial/conference with a graduate student per week. Advanced courses might involve three hours of seminar time a week with a professor, but no lectures at all. A full time student would be expected to take 5 courses each semester, though only 2/3 of that in literature if that is their major.

I did combined arts, my major being English Lit . The heaviest week I had was 12 hours of lectures and seminars. Simple comparisons are pointless, but you do have to question why an Arts uni course has to be 3 years. The holidays are extensive. When I was there I had a reading week - basically a half term in the Autumn and Spring terms. The Christmas hols were 3 weeks and we didn't start until late September. The exams were in May/June leaving 3 more months off. If I were paying nowadays, I would question this. The three years accrues extra living costs, travel etc. From what my son tells me, this doesn't seem to have changed.

I don't think much of the lecturer's view that a 2 hour lecture takes 10 hours to prepare. It might do - the first time it is delivered. The next time you would modify it to take account of new developments. It's the same in any teaching job.

I reckon part of the problem is the lecturers themselves. My brother worked for Leeds university, and found that the lecturers there were very reluctant to accept change of any kind, and lived in a kind of academic ivory tower.

My wife attended the local university studying history a few years ago. The head of history read from his notes - that he'd probably developed a decade ago - and expected the students to write everyhing verbatim. No ICT to prsent the stuff, no notes online, no recommended websites - nothing. Other lecturers were much better, but this guy was the head of department. You can guess how progressive the department was. If it had been me, I'd have taken my Mr Bolshy head and left my potato head at home to see this bloke.

Yes, it's true that English (and Arts for that matter) have less class time (lecture, seminar, tutorial &c.) than sciences - but profs (at least as far as I know) exist outside of class. Office hours is a widely adopted policies that students are too lazy to take advantage of. And when the face to face contact fails, email is something profs are heavily invested in.

Even though I only had 3 hours/week of class with one particular prof, I was very often at his office hours - talking about the book, or (one in awhile) seeking help for an essay.

That wouldn't be something that could adequately top up for everyone. I always thought it was for one off problems rather than as a systematic form of consultation. I'm sure e-mail helps these days, but even so it's not a substitute.

It is certainly true that the raising of tuition fees has lead to a certain feeling of entitlement amongst a minority of students - with some of them there is only a very thinly veiled assertion that because they (or quite often their parents) are paying my wages, I should be handing out glowing marks for everything. It's a good thing, however, that such people are a minority.

I think Paul raises an interesting point about the extra content of lectures, however. There are quite a few lecturers here who deliver without any visual aids, powerpoints or handouts, and some students do complain about that. I've chatted about it with several colleagues, and their response is pretty uniform: in the first instance it is an extra burden of work for them if they are not the type who normally use powerpoints or handouts, and secondly the fact that if all the materials are made available online it is suspected that many students will simply not turn up to lectures.

This year, I filmed all of the lectures on the module that I taught. The Department asked me to do this, and these recordings were made for the benefit of students on a six-month Erasmus exchange. It was very noticeable, however, that a large number of students came up to me after lectures wanting to know why I was making a recording of them, and where they would be able to obtain a copy - some of them were very disappointed to find that they would not be able to access them. The fear, again, is that if we made the recording available online then students simply would not turn up to the original lectures.

I read the article and I am trying to understand the point. It's a different system from the one I am used to. Some teachers here use power point but not all. Some record all lectures and some don't. I don't get any extra time with my teachers, there are lectures twice a week with each teacher and I just have to read and do the work myself. They do answer e-mails when I have questions and I know there are office hours but I never use them. I have no idea what it's like in other departments but I'm there to do the work and read the books, I have never thought about using sparknotes!

I read this article 3 times but I really don't get the problem, I might just be so used to the system here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helga

I read the article and I am trying to understand the point. It's a different system from the one I am used to. Some teachers here use power point but not all. Some record all lectures and some don't. I don't get any extra time with my teachers, there are lectures twice a week with each teacher and I just have to read and do the work myself. They do answer e-mails when I have questions and I know there are office hours but I never use them. I have no idea what it's like in other departments but I'm there to do the work and read the books, I have never thought about using sparknotes!

I read this article 3 times but I really don't get the problem, I might just be so used to the system here.

---

The student is arguing that he should get more 'contact time' with tutors, as compared to other subjects literature students get less teaching time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

The student is arguing that he should get more 'contact time' with tutors, as compared to other subjects literature students get less teaching time.

---

I don't think that is a problem here in my school, I at least don't hear anyone complain. I just don't find spark notes more helpful than reading and analyzing a book on my own.

this first quote from the piece is bothering me:
'The other day I sat in a two-hour seminar on an 800-page novel and began to despair about studying English. The novel was a set text for an exam and that seminar was the only one we would have on it. I decided, yet again, I'd probably have to turn to SparkNotes.'

Is this person complaining about only getting a two hour seminar on one book? That not being enough, having to rely on sparknotes... If your getting a literature degree you should be able to read a book and analyze it well enough to take an exam.

I know I don't want more contact time. But I have other complains about school so I guess there are problems everywhere.

I agree. There is a conflation in this article with "contact time" and putting in the effort to read and think about the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helga

I don't think that is a problem here in my school, I at least don't hear anyone complain. I just don't find spark notes more helpful than reading and analyzing a book on my own.

this first quote from the piece is bothering me:
'The other day I sat in a two-hour seminar on an 800-page novel and began to despair about studying English. The novel was a set text for an exam and that seminar was the only one we would have on it. I decided, yet again, I'd probably have to turn to SparkNotes.'

Is this person complaining about only getting a two hour seminar on one book? That not being enough, having to rely on sparknotes... If your getting a literature degree you should be able to read a book and analyze it well enough to take an exam.

I know I don't want more contact time. But I have other complains about school so I guess there are problems everywhere.

---

Yes I think that is what he is saying, he wants more teacher time.

I agree with you, the point of the lecture or seminar is not to give you everything on a plate, it's there to give you ideas and send you in the right direction for you to read further. He's arguing that they should have more contact time because other subjects get more time but as I pointed out earlier I don't think comparing different degrees like that really works. Also, if he thinks he's got it hard now wait until he starts working.

I can understand what the student in the article is getting at. Remember they are often 18 when they first go to Uni, and the first term is all about learning independently. I don't think that anyone would suggest that sudents be spoon fed by more contact hours, but a 2 hour lecture on an 800 page novel? Does it really do justice to the themes, author, characters, settings, imagery, symbolism, wider context, literary relevance etc etc. It depends upon the book of course - but could you adequately present what you wanted about something that long - a couple of hundred pages shy of War and Peace?

One of my lecturers was brilliant at Joyce. In fact he appeared on Mastermind with him as his subject. He came in and spoke for the whole lecture without notes. He was really good. But his prep had been developed over years of academic study. I'm not taking that away from him, but the standard time on the novel - Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - could have been longer. We didn't question it at the time, but I think there's a point about the comparative contact times. It is of course about developing self study, but then if that's the case why is the course not 2 years? The student is doing it in their own time anyway, so why not have two years and then have the third year as some training for the student so their degree becomes something they can apply to a job?

If I were going through the education system now, I would not use my uni time for English lit. It is something you can study in your own time to a reasonable level. You don't get the lecturers' really good insights, but you can read lit crit stuff. I would definately look at a more worldly study - engineering, business, a science, maths. They pay. English Lit, by comparison doesn't unless you become a top academic or are prepared to go through the teaching system and wait 10 harassing years to become Head of Dept. (Less if the school is a difficult one).

Quote:

---

If I were going through the education system now, I would not use my uni time for English lit. It is something you can study in your own time to a reasonable level. You don't get the lecturers' really good insights, but you can read lit crit stuff. I would definately look at a more worldly study - engineering, business, a science, maths. They pay. English Lit, by comparison doesn't unless you become a top academic or are prepared to go through the teaching system and wait 10 harassing years to become Head of Dept. (Less if the school is a difficult one).

---

Yes, I would even be tempted to take it a stage further and not bother with university at all. I very much enjoyed my study and gained a lot from it in terms of bumping up my skills and as an intellectual escape, a way to meet like-minded people and go and have a beer after class etc, but it was never going to offer much in terms of a financial reward. It has aided my work and 'career' a little, if you want to call it that, but in purely financial terms the amount invested in no way compensates for it, no chance. From a financial point of view, unless you are really really top drawer, (and even then?), studying literature and a lot of other subjects, psychology springs to mind, makes no financial sense at all - you've got to be crazy really if you are in it for the money and of course many people aren't.

I was also lucky enough to have my degree completely funded by the old new Labour government, let alone paying 9k a year for it! It was almost a waste of time financially speaking for me and I got it for free, so I can't imagine paying 27k for it! So if I was 18 and looking at things as they are now I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't bother with university at all. I don't know what I would do. Maybe get stuck in to something practical where I could branch out into self-employment. I don't know, thinking about work always depresses me. I have turned down potential career advancement this year so that I can concentrate on chess!!:nod: That says it all I'm sure.

The last time I was at a university was when I dropped my daughter off at one. I recall my attitude toward contact time with teaching staff was like Helga's when I was an undergraduate. I generally didn't want to have much contact time with them. There was a subject matter to learn, not just to pass the course and get the credits, but to not waste my time while I was there. If the instructors did not help during class, why should they help privately in their office? I would go to the library or ask someone.

As a graduate student studying with a particular professor may have more value. For the few years I was a graduate student, I had some minor teaching responsibilities. Generally students did not come to the office hours I was required to post. Perhaps I was a bad teacher and they felt it wouldn't help. I don't know. More seemed to go to a "math lab" that I had to attend as someone who was supposedly able to answer questions, but many used the facility as a way to congregate and do homework together. I just floated around being available to answer the few questions that arose.

One of the people I work with teaches an online credit course in computer technology. I don't think he has ever personally met any of his students. The lectures are all recorded and testing is done online. He responds to questions through email and chat programs and he doesn't spend too much time doing it because he is also working full time.

I don't know whether it is financially worthwhile going to a university or not. It is something to do and the costs seem to be about $40-50k per year including room and board. I have a nephew who considers it financially worthwhile to pay over $100k a year for an MBA degree which he will start in a couple of years. Maybe the economy will tank by then and it will be much cheaper.

I've learned more about literature from this site than I did in general education courses as an undergraduate. In fact, I've learned more about quantum mechanics, relativity and religion from discussions here than I did as an undergraduate. There is no credit for such participation, but perhaps that is the way learning will occur in the future.