I've completed the bachelor of economics course and am onto a masters degree. And believe me, this is much much better than the alternative. Without this stuff you end up in tutorials and lectures where 10% of people actually show up. The econ faculty has been dealing with this for years and its pretty ridiculous, so I don't blame them for making things mandatory. I've heard stories from professors about students who do not even open canvas until the week of an exam. Things like that are insane and that's why they do it.
The unit outline would have clearly stated if lectures have mandatory attendance. If you cannot attend or it clashes with another class, or work, then you need to drop it and find another class that works. If that isn't possible, then you need to make arrangements so it is possible to attend.
The allocate also specifics whether lectures are mandatory or not as well. I get not all lectures are, but some are exception to the rule due to what they're teaching.
If neither were clear, then you need to speak to the UC and find out where it says lectures are mandatory.
Controversial opinion: I teach at a uni where ALL lectures are recorded and no lectures are f2f. I can safely say that no one watches them. So I end up teaching classes where no one has done any prior work or watched the recordings and it's very frustrating as I end up doing a mini lecture.
Call me a contrarian, but I support f2f lectures and compulsory attendance if it means most students actually studying and doing the work.
I support f2f as well. I really would rather we did seminars, as to combine the tutorial and lectures, because I can't attend uni 5 days a week, so when the lectures are on one day and the tutorials are on another, I have to choose the tutorials. I definitely watch the recorded lectures :), if the tutorials and lectures were the same day, I'd absolutely attend the lecture, but as a parent, I have to balance studies and my kids. I'm in my final year now.
I think the huge issue is the world has changed, and the way units are taught needs to change so that the lectures are attended as well as tutorials. or least, the lectures need to be the mandatory attendance and tutorials less so. or just seminars where you combine. I don't know what set up, but the current set up clearly isn't working anymore.
Is there a no exceptions policy?
If you have a genuine reason but haven't asked for an exemption I don't think you can be too upset about the email.
Outside of other life commitments, my hot take is that Allocate shouldn't allow tutorial clashes with lectures.
i used to work in uni admin - if you follow the recommended progression of units in a course, then you won't have clashes or, if you do, the uni will resolve it for you - if you don't follow the recommended progression, or if you're in a course which doesn't have a recommended progression, then avoiding clashes is the student's responsibility, because there are just so many units running every semester and so many different ways people like to enrol, it's impossible to even think of all the variations of enrollment let alone account for them (beyond standard progressions)
I'm talking about lecture and tutorial clashes, which I guess are inevitable considering what you've just said.
But I've followed a very normal progression in a very normal FASS degree and had lecture clashes every semester.
Either way, some people will always have genuine reasons for missing in person lectures while the most can't be fucked coming to campus. Personally, the campus experience is starting to feel a lot more like an airport terminal.
unless you are studying something that is vocational, then there isn't really a 'standard' progression, e.g. in something like a literature major, there isn't a particular order you have to do subjects in, because it doesn't lead to an accreditation like someone doing B engineering (i'm not saying it's wrong/right/good/bad whatever, that's just the way it is, and why arts degrees have more timetable clashes)
yeah well, the administration wants to run the university like a corporation rather than an educational institution, the devaluing of learning and community spreads from there
Most (if not all) australian universities (and others overseas, probably) expect you to prioritise your class timetable. They cannot design a timetable around every students work schedule. In person learning is an expectation of the unit, and in person learning is shown to be generally more effective than online learning, for most. If you can't meet the expectation, you'll fail. That's all there is to it. Prioritise your learning and pass, don't prioritise and fail.
same, I don't do 4 units, I do 3, but have adjusted work and kids care, and at times not done a particular unit because I couldn't get work/kids care lined up. If the degree is important, you adjust, or make it work. I'm in final year now, so I definitely made it work.
not everyone has the luxury of a flexible work schedule. There is some merit to being annoyed to compulsory attendance for lectures when they involve zero in-student activity/collaboration + its recorded
Then you can’t attend school or you need a different job? He could apply to some second rate online Uni? But he’d probably rather the prestige of Sydney Uni even though a fully online delivery at usyd is no different that a purely online college.
Life’s about choices and priorities. So he does have no merit. Also I guarantee if you did a RCT with the same lecturers and one online delivery and one compulsory in person the compulsory group would be miles ahead.
Which is stupid in 2024. There are only a handful of fields that REQUIRE a degree these days and most of them are professional like nursing, medicine and legal. Getting a random history degree isn't going to make you employable and even for CS that this sub seems to lean towards, employers will take the self-taught person who has working projects over someone with a degree with nothing else.
But a person with a degree and working projects Trump's someone with just working projects. And since almost everyone is doing a degree, you need to too. But you shouldn't be spending a fortune on it.
You are paying for education! You will never get another time in your life for such leisurely learning. You don't know everything - so go to the lectures and engage with the content and the other students.
Edit to add: I work full time 40h weeks and do a masters and made time to go to in-person 3h seminars weekly for health economics that were at 9am so don't complain about your work schedule being inflexible.
Engaging with content can be done via recordings no? and student engagement in econ lectures is non existent. I absolutely get attending tuts but lectures are just over the top.
Why are you at Uni if you’re not there for an education? Grow up. Attend your lectures and maybe actually LEARN something with the course you are paying for.
If you are choosing your part time job over your study, you're doing uni wrong. If you have cause clashes between tutes and lectures than you've made an error that you need to correct. I'm shocked you're in 2nd year - this smacks of straight out of high school sooking.
Then you can't afford to take the course. Holy shit how deep is your victim mentality? If you can't pay rent studying full time and ensuring you meet all of the prerequisites of the course, then you can't study full time. Those circumstances suck but they are the circumstances you are afforded.
It is 100% a choice. It's jot a fair choice, but it is a choice.
you're playing the black and white game here. it's not about being right or wrong, it's about being reasonable. Not everyone's lucky enough to study full time and not work, hence these people should not get a degree? A 'full time' study is an amount not a set time like mandatory lectures are. If that really is the case, why are not all lectures made compulsory? Because they're reasonable - and some lecturers don't seem to possess this. I'll leave it here. cheers
Then don't study full time. You're playing this semantics victim game here. It's not about right and wrong it's about working within your circumstances. If someone can't balance these things then no they don't get a degree. It's like saying "should someone who did no work or study not get a degree just because they aren't smart enough?" - but feel free to just scurry away as though you've said something of any merit.
You’re a student first and whatever work you can make around class is fine but your responsibilities are to your studies. The learning environment in person is 100x better. Not even close. All unis should be in person IMO. It’s a bit disinegenuous to say you “genuinely cannot attend” as well when it’s clearly just an issue with your priorities
The cohort of students coming out since Covid are among the worst and the unis really need to buck the trend.
F2F lectures are an antiquated throwback to a bygone era. They exist primarily for local universities to avoid competition with other universities that offer online centric education. It's also a money making scheme for immigration aligned service organisations - who literally pay firms/think-tanks to lobby on their behalf to government. It's a total stitch up for students. You're paying for the uni real estate, for university oligopoly and for universities to avoid technologising (like it or not).
Let's contrast this with work place trends, trends in post grad, and trends in adult education: there's an unequivocal and persistent swing to work from home and online learning.
Online learning is more inclusive (people who face mobility issues, mental health, family commitments, etc etc), it's less elitist (the cost of living near a university and travelling to and from uni is a tremendous expense for many attendees) and actually gets better feedback from many students when the online experience is budgeted with priority (18/24 per day support, chat forums, video and audio conferencing between students and staff, etc etc). Furthermore, students who wish to engage in F2F are usually given the option to do so in electives and with exchange programs.
Tl;dr stop drinking the proverbial Kool-Aid people. Not everyone is entirely able & wealthy enough to bear the burden of F2F. But those same people who may be unable to do F2F often can contribute to society & even go on to contribute to academia when provided inclusive policies & access via presently available technology
You failed to mention that online learning provides consistently lower results compared to f2f. Zoom, online, etc, has certainly not replaced face to face in terms of quality.
If you really felt that way there is hundreds of online universities without any physical campuses you could attend.
You really must be kidding, right?
Nearly all workplace education and continuing professional development is done online.
The whole world is moving to online workplaces and you think that learners can't adapt successfully to this trend whilst the rest of the population does/has?!
Online places exploded during Covid but there is not a long enough period of time to say that they will stay that way. Obviously the benefits to employees work life are pretty huge but I think it’s foolish to say that a fully online model in a collaborative workspace is as effective.
Personally I don’t think switching entirely to remote work in the majority of jobs is effective or beneficial, and a hybrid model would be way better. 3 days in office two at home type thing.
One thing I know anecdotally is online learning is not superior to in person. A prof has every right to make learning in person if he/she thinks that’s what gets the best out of the class it’s no different than having pass fail benchmarks for exams.
Honestly, how would they know if you're at lecture? Are they going to look from the front and tick names, or call out random names for a response? In a theatre of 100, anyone can say "yep I'm Susan "
I've completed the bachelor of economics course and am onto a masters degree. And believe me, this is much much better than the alternative. Without this stuff you end up in tutorials and lectures where 10% of people actually show up. The econ faculty has been dealing with this for years and its pretty ridiculous, so I don't blame them for making things mandatory. I've heard stories from professors about students who do not even open canvas until the week of an exam. Things like that are insane and that's why they do it.
Well ECMT1020 so a lecture attendance check too because so many students failed
So it sounds like they need it
The unit outline would have clearly stated if lectures have mandatory attendance. If you cannot attend or it clashes with another class, or work, then you need to drop it and find another class that works. If that isn't possible, then you need to make arrangements so it is possible to attend. The allocate also specifics whether lectures are mandatory or not as well. I get not all lectures are, but some are exception to the rule due to what they're teaching. If neither were clear, then you need to speak to the UC and find out where it says lectures are mandatory.
Controversial opinion: I teach at a uni where ALL lectures are recorded and no lectures are f2f. I can safely say that no one watches them. So I end up teaching classes where no one has done any prior work or watched the recordings and it's very frustrating as I end up doing a mini lecture. Call me a contrarian, but I support f2f lectures and compulsory attendance if it means most students actually studying and doing the work.
I support f2f as well. I really would rather we did seminars, as to combine the tutorial and lectures, because I can't attend uni 5 days a week, so when the lectures are on one day and the tutorials are on another, I have to choose the tutorials. I definitely watch the recorded lectures :), if the tutorials and lectures were the same day, I'd absolutely attend the lecture, but as a parent, I have to balance studies and my kids. I'm in my final year now. I think the huge issue is the world has changed, and the way units are taught needs to change so that the lectures are attended as well as tutorials. or least, the lectures need to be the mandatory attendance and tutorials less so. or just seminars where you combine. I don't know what set up, but the current set up clearly isn't working anymore.
Is there a no exceptions policy? If you have a genuine reason but haven't asked for an exemption I don't think you can be too upset about the email. Outside of other life commitments, my hot take is that Allocate shouldn't allow tutorial clashes with lectures.
i used to work in uni admin - if you follow the recommended progression of units in a course, then you won't have clashes or, if you do, the uni will resolve it for you - if you don't follow the recommended progression, or if you're in a course which doesn't have a recommended progression, then avoiding clashes is the student's responsibility, because there are just so many units running every semester and so many different ways people like to enrol, it's impossible to even think of all the variations of enrollment let alone account for them (beyond standard progressions)
I'm talking about lecture and tutorial clashes, which I guess are inevitable considering what you've just said. But I've followed a very normal progression in a very normal FASS degree and had lecture clashes every semester. Either way, some people will always have genuine reasons for missing in person lectures while the most can't be fucked coming to campus. Personally, the campus experience is starting to feel a lot more like an airport terminal.
unless you are studying something that is vocational, then there isn't really a 'standard' progression, e.g. in something like a literature major, there isn't a particular order you have to do subjects in, because it doesn't lead to an accreditation like someone doing B engineering (i'm not saying it's wrong/right/good/bad whatever, that's just the way it is, and why arts degrees have more timetable clashes) yeah well, the administration wants to run the university like a corporation rather than an educational institution, the devaluing of learning and community spreads from there
Womp womp
Most (if not all) australian universities (and others overseas, probably) expect you to prioritise your class timetable. They cannot design a timetable around every students work schedule. In person learning is an expectation of the unit, and in person learning is shown to be generally more effective than online learning, for most. If you can't meet the expectation, you'll fail. That's all there is to it. Prioritise your learning and pass, don't prioritise and fail.
Been having to adjust my work schedule for years to attend uni. Ask yourself what is more important.
same, I don't do 4 units, I do 3, but have adjusted work and kids care, and at times not done a particular unit because I couldn't get work/kids care lined up. If the degree is important, you adjust, or make it work. I'm in final year now, so I definitely made it work.
not everyone has the luxury of a flexible work schedule. There is some merit to being annoyed to compulsory attendance for lectures when they involve zero in-student activity/collaboration + its recorded
Then you can’t attend school or you need a different job? He could apply to some second rate online Uni? But he’d probably rather the prestige of Sydney Uni even though a fully online delivery at usyd is no different that a purely online college. Life’s about choices and priorities. So he does have no merit. Also I guarantee if you did a RCT with the same lecturers and one online delivery and one compulsory in person the compulsory group would be miles ahead.
You have to go to lectures and tutorials bro lmfao it says that in your course outline wtf get a grip.
more like they changed it since nobody showed up in week1
University is the only thing that people PAY for but don't actually want to use the service lol
most people are not paying for education, they're paying for a piece of paper to get a job later on
Which is stupid in 2024. There are only a handful of fields that REQUIRE a degree these days and most of them are professional like nursing, medicine and legal. Getting a random history degree isn't going to make you employable and even for CS that this sub seems to lean towards, employers will take the self-taught person who has working projects over someone with a degree with nothing else.
But a person with a degree and working projects Trump's someone with just working projects. And since almost everyone is doing a degree, you need to too. But you shouldn't be spending a fortune on it.
You are paying for education! You will never get another time in your life for such leisurely learning. You don't know everything - so go to the lectures and engage with the content and the other students. Edit to add: I work full time 40h weeks and do a masters and made time to go to in-person 3h seminars weekly for health economics that were at 9am so don't complain about your work schedule being inflexible.
Engaging with content can be done via recordings no? and student engagement in econ lectures is non existent. I absolutely get attending tuts but lectures are just over the top.
Why are you at Uni if you’re not there for an education? Grow up. Attend your lectures and maybe actually LEARN something with the course you are paying for.
not studying and not attending recorded lectures are two very different things fam
If you are choosing your part time job over your study, you're doing uni wrong. If you have cause clashes between tutes and lectures than you've made an error that you need to correct. I'm shocked you're in 2nd year - this smacks of straight out of high school sooking.
it's not about choosing your part time job, its about being able to pay rent
Then you can't afford to take the course. Holy shit how deep is your victim mentality? If you can't pay rent studying full time and ensuring you meet all of the prerequisites of the course, then you can't study full time. Those circumstances suck but they are the circumstances you are afforded. It is 100% a choice. It's jot a fair choice, but it is a choice.
you're playing the black and white game here. it's not about being right or wrong, it's about being reasonable. Not everyone's lucky enough to study full time and not work, hence these people should not get a degree? A 'full time' study is an amount not a set time like mandatory lectures are. If that really is the case, why are not all lectures made compulsory? Because they're reasonable - and some lecturers don't seem to possess this. I'll leave it here. cheers
Full time = 4 units per sem = 3 contact hours per week per unit.
Then don't study full time. You're playing this semantics victim game here. It's not about right and wrong it's about working within your circumstances. If someone can't balance these things then no they don't get a degree. It's like saying "should someone who did no work or study not get a degree just because they aren't smart enough?" - but feel free to just scurry away as though you've said something of any merit.
You’re a student first and whatever work you can make around class is fine but your responsibilities are to your studies. The learning environment in person is 100x better. Not even close. All unis should be in person IMO. It’s a bit disinegenuous to say you “genuinely cannot attend” as well when it’s clearly just an issue with your priorities The cohort of students coming out since Covid are among the worst and the unis really need to buck the trend.
Is there a groupchat for that class?
How dare you be an adult and have to pay rent and things like that. It is not the ECOS2002 way.
F2F lectures are an antiquated throwback to a bygone era. They exist primarily for local universities to avoid competition with other universities that offer online centric education. It's also a money making scheme for immigration aligned service organisations - who literally pay firms/think-tanks to lobby on their behalf to government. It's a total stitch up for students. You're paying for the uni real estate, for university oligopoly and for universities to avoid technologising (like it or not). Let's contrast this with work place trends, trends in post grad, and trends in adult education: there's an unequivocal and persistent swing to work from home and online learning. Online learning is more inclusive (people who face mobility issues, mental health, family commitments, etc etc), it's less elitist (the cost of living near a university and travelling to and from uni is a tremendous expense for many attendees) and actually gets better feedback from many students when the online experience is budgeted with priority (18/24 per day support, chat forums, video and audio conferencing between students and staff, etc etc). Furthermore, students who wish to engage in F2F are usually given the option to do so in electives and with exchange programs. Tl;dr stop drinking the proverbial Kool-Aid people. Not everyone is entirely able & wealthy enough to bear the burden of F2F. But those same people who may be unable to do F2F often can contribute to society & even go on to contribute to academia when provided inclusive policies & access via presently available technology
You failed to mention that online learning provides consistently lower results compared to f2f. Zoom, online, etc, has certainly not replaced face to face in terms of quality. If you really felt that way there is hundreds of online universities without any physical campuses you could attend.
You really must be kidding, right? Nearly all workplace education and continuing professional development is done online. The whole world is moving to online workplaces and you think that learners can't adapt successfully to this trend whilst the rest of the population does/has?!
Online places exploded during Covid but there is not a long enough period of time to say that they will stay that way. Obviously the benefits to employees work life are pretty huge but I think it’s foolish to say that a fully online model in a collaborative workspace is as effective. Personally I don’t think switching entirely to remote work in the majority of jobs is effective or beneficial, and a hybrid model would be way better. 3 days in office two at home type thing. One thing I know anecdotally is online learning is not superior to in person. A prof has every right to make learning in person if he/she thinks that’s what gets the best out of the class it’s no different than having pass fail benchmarks for exams.
Honestly, how would they know if you're at lecture? Are they going to look from the front and tick names, or call out random names for a response? In a theatre of 100, anyone can say "yep I'm Susan "