Home
TheSinner.net
Work Load...
20 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Work Load...
by Carolyn on Mon Aug 11, 2003 4:56 pm
I was wondering how much work you're expected to do for classes. I'm American and it seems that students have class less often at St. Andrews than they do in US universities. How many hours per week do most students have class? Is most work independent studying? St. Andrews sounds really awesome, but I'm a bit confused about how courses and stuff are set up. Also, how does the Scottish course system compare to the American course system?
-
Carolyn
Re:
by Cain on Mon Aug 11, 2003 6:43 pm
[s]Unregisted User Carolyn wrote on 15:32, 11th Aug 2003:
I was wondering how much work you're expected to do for classes. I'm American and it seems that students have class less often at St. Andrews than they do in US universities. How many hours per week do most students have class? Is most work independent studying? St. Andrews sounds really awesome, but I'm a bit confused about how courses and stuff are set up. Also, how does the Scottish course system compare to the American course system?
first off - i'm an arts student - naything talking about class expectations will be relevant only to arts subjects.
i don't know anything about the american system, so i can't make any comparisons. how ti works here is freshers conventionally take six modules (three in each semester) usually this consists of three different courses with two modules in each. [that looked very confusing. in my first year i took 1 IR course, 1 Modern History Course and 1 Management course in 1st semester of 1st year, and the same again in 2nd semester of 1st year]
how much you're expcted to do for classes? all depends on how well you want to do. most tutorials will assign you a week where you have to make a presentaiton to the rest of the class. this takes a fair bit of effort as you're expected to be the class expert on your chosen subject. for the rest of the time you can get away with turning up and taking notes on what your presenter says. you don't get assessed on your contribution to tutorials, but nobody likes being picked on to answer a question that they don't have a clue about. management makes students bring in a page of A4 notes to prove that they've actually prepared.
class hours? i was in lectures/tutorials for 13 hours in my first two years. that's not a lot compared to scientists, or even other artists. most work comes from independent studying (though i presonally recommend EVERYBODY to have a study buddy) in the library or reading your textbooks to prepare for lectures or tutorials. i like to take two weeks to prepare for an essay from start to finish as this makes it non-stressful and gives me lots of time to get everything in order.
different people will likely give you totally different answers about how much they do, and the scientists should be very different. hope that that helped
[hr]
I have grown the soul of an enemy
I was wondering how much work you're expected to do for classes. I'm American and it seems that students have class less often at St. Andrews than they do in US universities. How many hours per week do most students have class? Is most work independent studying? St. Andrews sounds really awesome, but I'm a bit confused about how courses and stuff are set up. Also, how does the Scottish course system compare to the American course system?
first off - i'm an arts student - naything talking about class expectations will be relevant only to arts subjects.
i don't know anything about the american system, so i can't make any comparisons. how ti works here is freshers conventionally take six modules (three in each semester) usually this consists of three different courses with two modules in each. [that looked very confusing. in my first year i took 1 IR course, 1 Modern History Course and 1 Management course in 1st semester of 1st year, and the same again in 2nd semester of 1st year]
how much you're expcted to do for classes? all depends on how well you want to do. most tutorials will assign you a week where you have to make a presentaiton to the rest of the class. this takes a fair bit of effort as you're expected to be the class expert on your chosen subject. for the rest of the time you can get away with turning up and taking notes on what your presenter says. you don't get assessed on your contribution to tutorials, but nobody likes being picked on to answer a question that they don't have a clue about. management makes students bring in a page of A4 notes to prove that they've actually prepared.
class hours? i was in lectures/tutorials for 13 hours in my first two years. that's not a lot compared to scientists, or even other artists. most work comes from independent studying (though i presonally recommend EVERYBODY to have a study buddy) in the library or reading your textbooks to prepare for lectures or tutorials. i like to take two weeks to prepare for an essay from start to finish as this makes it non-stressful and gives me lots of time to get everything in order.
different people will likely give you totally different answers about how much they do, and the scientists should be very different. hope that that helped
[hr]
I have grown the soul of an enemy
I hold an element of surprise
-
Cain
- Posts: 4439
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:31 am
Re:
by EviLTwiN on Mon Aug 11, 2003 6:50 pm
in first year science students do the same... ie. 6 modules, 3 per semester. Again it is usual to do 3 subjects first semester, and the same 3 in the second semester. I did Maths, Computing and Management.
That meant that each day i had 3 lectures, except for one day a week where i had 2 (either that or i missed loads of management lectures... oh no wait, i did that anyway).
Also 3 tutorials a week (one per subject), and in the 2 science subjects i had 2 practicals. Cpmputing was 2 and a hlaf hours, maths was one.
So i had 20 hours a week, plus obivously working in my own time (or should have).
In second year i did nothing but maths and had 11 hours a week. (Science students do 4 modules in second year, whereas arts students do 6 like in first year. 2nd year science modules are obviously slightly bigger than first year ones.)
[hr]IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinsaint.gif
[s]http://www.red-llama.com/eviltwin [rar!]......http://www.feedbacking.com
http://www.red-llama.com/eviltwin/photogallery.htm
[/s]
That meant that each day i had 3 lectures, except for one day a week where i had 2 (either that or i missed loads of management lectures... oh no wait, i did that anyway).
Also 3 tutorials a week (one per subject), and in the 2 science subjects i had 2 practicals. Cpmputing was 2 and a hlaf hours, maths was one.
So i had 20 hours a week, plus obivously working in my own time (or should have).
In second year i did nothing but maths and had 11 hours a week. (Science students do 4 modules in second year, whereas arts students do 6 like in first year. 2nd year science modules are obviously slightly bigger than first year ones.)
[hr]IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinsaint.gif
[s]http://www.red-llama.com/eviltwin [rar!]......http://www.feedbacking.com
http://www.red-llama.com/eviltwin/photogallery.htm
[/s]
-
EviLTwiN
Re:
by larkvi on Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:03 am
AS a former year abroad student, I must say that the difference really is shocking. As an Honours Arts Students, I had four hours of courses per week, grand total, and the amount of out-of-class time (office hours) that were available was highly variable.
Some professors teach seminars for undergraduates, and this is the most shocking difference you are likely to come up against. Seminars work in graduate school (I am currently in Mediaeval History at the University of Toronto), but I constantly found myself wondering exactly why I had come to certain class meetings, as the only material being presented was by an undergraduate, who:
1. Isn't an expert on the course material
2. Didn't do enough research
3. Is not any good at presentations
Such classes can be avoided, and classes that are taught in a lecture style are available--I would recommend contacting faculty and students in your proposed discipline to find out.
Some people love seminars. We get European students who are shocked that the professor actually speaks during class meetings, as they are used to doing presentations and learning from the presentations of others. I personally disliked it, as I resented being taught by someone who was not an expert in the field, and who, in many cases, had done significantly less work than I did.
It is a major consideration, but not a spoiler. At St Andrews, the expectation is that the best students will be in the library many hours a week teaching themselves much of the material. The best students at a US university will be expected to do much the same. I would say that it is easier to learn with less effort at a typical US university, and to just get through classes with less effort at St Andrews, but that is a very coarse way of putting it.
If I have learned anything about being a good student (and I would hope I have, as I am at arguably the best university for my field in N America) it is that a successful student looks at their commitment to their course work as equivalent or near-equivalent to a full time job (probably less in the first years). If you have that kind of commitment, you should do fine wherever you are.
Hope that helps.
Some professors teach seminars for undergraduates, and this is the most shocking difference you are likely to come up against. Seminars work in graduate school (I am currently in Mediaeval History at the University of Toronto), but I constantly found myself wondering exactly why I had come to certain class meetings, as the only material being presented was by an undergraduate, who:
1. Isn't an expert on the course material
2. Didn't do enough research
3. Is not any good at presentations
Such classes can be avoided, and classes that are taught in a lecture style are available--I would recommend contacting faculty and students in your proposed discipline to find out.
Some people love seminars. We get European students who are shocked that the professor actually speaks during class meetings, as they are used to doing presentations and learning from the presentations of others. I personally disliked it, as I resented being taught by someone who was not an expert in the field, and who, in many cases, had done significantly less work than I did.
It is a major consideration, but not a spoiler. At St Andrews, the expectation is that the best students will be in the library many hours a week teaching themselves much of the material. The best students at a US university will be expected to do much the same. I would say that it is easier to learn with less effort at a typical US university, and to just get through classes with less effort at St Andrews, but that is a very coarse way of putting it.
If I have learned anything about being a good student (and I would hope I have, as I am at arguably the best university for my field in N America) it is that a successful student looks at their commitment to their course work as equivalent or near-equivalent to a full time job (probably less in the first years). If you have that kind of commitment, you should do fine wherever you are.
Hope that helps.
-
larkvi
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:16 pm
Re:
by highway_to_hell1982 on Wed Aug 13, 2003 8:28 pm
[s]Unregisted User Carolyn wrote on 15:32, 11th Aug 2003:
I was wondering how much work you're expected to do for classes. I'm American and it seems that students have class less often at St. Andrews than they do in US universities. How many hours per week do most students have class? Is most work independent studying? St. Andrews sounds really awesome, but I'm a bit confused about how courses and stuff are set up. Also, how does the Scottish course system compare to the American course system?
depends where you are in the game. if youre prehonours you dont have to study intensely to get to the next stage, but if youre in honours you need to work hard to attain a good grade as that determines your degree. independant studying is crucual in the later stages. you can rely on lecture notes for first year modules but from then on you will need to read around the subject. most intense reading comes from essay assignments but most of that just involves plucking things from books and mentioning where you get the source from.
tell us more about yourself and what you are going to be doing. if its arts, then take the things i said above seriously. if youre science, its all a matter of being spoilt with loads of nonsense facts and putting them to practise. but this is my view of it all
I was wondering how much work you're expected to do for classes. I'm American and it seems that students have class less often at St. Andrews than they do in US universities. How many hours per week do most students have class? Is most work independent studying? St. Andrews sounds really awesome, but I'm a bit confused about how courses and stuff are set up. Also, how does the Scottish course system compare to the American course system?
depends where you are in the game. if youre prehonours you dont have to study intensely to get to the next stage, but if youre in honours you need to work hard to attain a good grade as that determines your degree. independant studying is crucual in the later stages. you can rely on lecture notes for first year modules but from then on you will need to read around the subject. most intense reading comes from essay assignments but most of that just involves plucking things from books and mentioning where you get the source from.
tell us more about yourself and what you are going to be doing. if its arts, then take the things i said above seriously. if youre science, its all a matter of being spoilt with loads of nonsense facts and putting them to practise. but this is my view of it all
-
highway_to_hell1982
Re:
by The Cellar Bar on Thu Aug 14, 2003 2:45 am
[s]larkvi wrote on 06:03, 12th Aug 2003:
AS a former year abroad student, I must say that the difference really is shocking. As an Honours Arts Students, I had four hours of courses per week, grand total, and the amount of out-of-class time (office hours) that were available was highly variable.
Some professors teach seminars for undergraduates, and this is the most shocking difference you are likely to come up against. Seminars work in graduate school (I am currently in Mediaeval History at the University of Toronto), but I constantly found myself wondering exactly why I had come to certain class meetings, as the only material being presented was by an undergraduate, who:
1. Isn't an expert on the course material
2. Didn't do enough research
3. Is not any good at presentations
Such classes can be avoided, and classes that are taught in a lecture style are available--I would recommend contacting faculty and students in your proposed discipline to find out.
Some people love seminars. We get European students who are shocked that the professor actually speaks during class meetings, as they are used to doing presentations and learning from the presentations of others. I personally disliked it, as I resented being taught by someone who was not an expert in the field, and who, in many cases, had done significantly less work than I did.
It is a major consideration, but not a spoiler. At St Andrews, the expectation is that the best students will be in the library many hours a week teaching themselves much of the material. The best students at a US university will be expected to do much the same. I would say that it is easier to learn with less effort at a typical US university, and to just get through classes with less effort at St Andrews, but that is a very coarse way of putting it.
If I have learned anything about being a good student (and I would hope I have, as I am at arguably the best university for my field in N America) it is that a successful student looks at their commitment to their course work as equivalent or near-equivalent to a full time job (probably less in the first years). If you have that kind of commitment, you should do fine wherever you are.
Hope that helps.
the whole point about any University is that it is a community of people of different ages, backgrounds but an interest in learning. And maybe more importantly, learning to think for yourself.
For that reason, believing that an "expert" in the field can only be the lecturer and that nothing can be learned from anyone else is a mistake. The whole point of discussing someone else's piece of work in a tutorial isn't that you are being taught by them but are being exposed to possibly different ideas from your own and have to support what you believe to be the case. Unless of course, you'd rather not do that but are more interested in reciting slavishly what someone "in authority" is telling you.
Ask any good lecturer and they'll tell you pretty much the same because that's how they got where they are in the forst place - by putting up their ideas against the accepted norm. What drives the good lecturers crazy is some nonce writing down every single word that comes out of their mouths as Gospel - they want debate because that's the whole point of being here in the first place.
Otherwise you'd be as well staying at home and doing a correspondence course. It would also be a lot cheaper for the taxpayer because it would cut down on what is known as "Research". Or the process of questioning and pushing further the bounds of what is already known.
That might suit some but it sure as hell isn't why we are capable of doing now what we couldn't do 700 odd years ago when this University was founded
AS a former year abroad student, I must say that the difference really is shocking. As an Honours Arts Students, I had four hours of courses per week, grand total, and the amount of out-of-class time (office hours) that were available was highly variable.
Some professors teach seminars for undergraduates, and this is the most shocking difference you are likely to come up against. Seminars work in graduate school (I am currently in Mediaeval History at the University of Toronto), but I constantly found myself wondering exactly why I had come to certain class meetings, as the only material being presented was by an undergraduate, who:
1. Isn't an expert on the course material
2. Didn't do enough research
3. Is not any good at presentations
Such classes can be avoided, and classes that are taught in a lecture style are available--I would recommend contacting faculty and students in your proposed discipline to find out.
Some people love seminars. We get European students who are shocked that the professor actually speaks during class meetings, as they are used to doing presentations and learning from the presentations of others. I personally disliked it, as I resented being taught by someone who was not an expert in the field, and who, in many cases, had done significantly less work than I did.
It is a major consideration, but not a spoiler. At St Andrews, the expectation is that the best students will be in the library many hours a week teaching themselves much of the material. The best students at a US university will be expected to do much the same. I would say that it is easier to learn with less effort at a typical US university, and to just get through classes with less effort at St Andrews, but that is a very coarse way of putting it.
If I have learned anything about being a good student (and I would hope I have, as I am at arguably the best university for my field in N America) it is that a successful student looks at their commitment to their course work as equivalent or near-equivalent to a full time job (probably less in the first years). If you have that kind of commitment, you should do fine wherever you are.
Hope that helps.
the whole point about any University is that it is a community of people of different ages, backgrounds but an interest in learning. And maybe more importantly, learning to think for yourself.
For that reason, believing that an "expert" in the field can only be the lecturer and that nothing can be learned from anyone else is a mistake. The whole point of discussing someone else's piece of work in a tutorial isn't that you are being taught by them but are being exposed to possibly different ideas from your own and have to support what you believe to be the case. Unless of course, you'd rather not do that but are more interested in reciting slavishly what someone "in authority" is telling you.
Ask any good lecturer and they'll tell you pretty much the same because that's how they got where they are in the forst place - by putting up their ideas against the accepted norm. What drives the good lecturers crazy is some nonce writing down every single word that comes out of their mouths as Gospel - they want debate because that's the whole point of being here in the first place.
Otherwise you'd be as well staying at home and doing a correspondence course. It would also be a lot cheaper for the taxpayer because it would cut down on what is known as "Research". Or the process of questioning and pushing further the bounds of what is already known.
That might suit some but it sure as hell isn't why we are capable of doing now what we couldn't do 700 odd years ago when this University was founded
-
The Cellar Bar
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Re:
by Cain on Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:07 pm
[s]The Cellar Bar wrote on 03:45, 14th Aug 2003:
What drives the good lecturers crazy is some nonce writing down every single word that comes out of their mouths as Gospel - they want debate because that's the whole point of being here in the first place.
go and check out Prof Muller's door in the history department for proof of this.
What drives the good lecturers crazy is some nonce writing down every single word that comes out of their mouths as Gospel - they want debate because that's the whole point of being here in the first place.
go and check out Prof Muller's door in the history department for proof of this.
I hold an element of surprise
-
Cain
- Posts: 4439
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:31 am
Re:
by highway_to_hell1982 on Fri Aug 15, 2003 1:08 pm
[s]Unregisted User hmmm wrote on 13:12, 14th Aug 2003:
[s]highway_to_hell1982 wrote on 21:28, 13th Aug 2003:[i]
if youre science, its all a matter of being spoilt with loads of nonsense facts and putting them to practise.
And have you ever done any science subjects? Don't spout such nonsense.
[/i]
actually, yes i have, and i believe my above statement to be accurate, so dont dismiss it as nonsense buddy
[s]highway_to_hell1982 wrote on 21:28, 13th Aug 2003:[i]
if youre science, its all a matter of being spoilt with loads of nonsense facts and putting them to practise.
And have you ever done any science subjects? Don't spout such nonsense.
[/i]
actually, yes i have, and i believe my above statement to be accurate, so dont dismiss it as nonsense buddy
-
highway_to_hell1982
Re:
by fluKe on Fri Aug 15, 2003 1:20 pm
It's a well known fact sciences are harder subjects. Is it any coincidence that this year in England the average grades have shot up and the number of ppl taking science went down. Kind of indicates it's easier to do well in social subjects than sciences.
Art students have it easy.
Art students have it easy.
-
fluKe
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 2:06 am
Re:
by Pussycat on Fri Aug 15, 2003 1:22 pm
[s]highway_to_hell1982 wrote on 14:08, 15th Aug 2003:
[s]highway_to_hell1982 wrote on 21:28, 13th Aug 2003:[i]
if youre science, its all a matter of being spoilt with loads of nonsense facts and putting them to practise.
actually, yes i have, and i believe my above statement to be accurate, so dont dismiss it as nonsense buddy[/i]
Based on what exactly? Sounds like a) you didn't do very well, or b) you didnt get much out of it.
Either way I think your statement is nonsense. Very much so.
[s]highway_to_hell1982 wrote on 21:28, 13th Aug 2003:[i]
if youre science, its all a matter of being spoilt with loads of nonsense facts and putting them to practise.
actually, yes i have, and i believe my above statement to be accurate, so dont dismiss it as nonsense buddy[/i]
Based on what exactly? Sounds like a) you didn't do very well, or b) you didnt get much out of it.
Either way I think your statement is nonsense. Very much so.
-
Pussycat
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 8:36 pm
Re:
by mossop on Fri Aug 15, 2003 1:29 pm
[s]fluKe wrote on 14:20, 15th Aug 2003:
It's a well known fact sciences are harder subjects. Is it any coincidence that this year in England the average grades have shot up and the number of ppl taking science went down. Kind of indicates it's easier to do well in social subjects than sciences.
Art students have it easy.
What a load of shyte
I can't believe an intelligent person would write a statement like that! Your ignorance is beyond belief!
It's a well known fact sciences are harder subjects. Is it any coincidence that this year in England the average grades have shot up and the number of ppl taking science went down. Kind of indicates it's easier to do well in social subjects than sciences.
Art students have it easy.
What a load of shyte
I can't believe an intelligent person would write a statement like that! Your ignorance is beyond belief!
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a crate. Coincidence? I think not.
-
mossop
- Posts: 829
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:07 am
Re:
by Pussycat on Fri Aug 15, 2003 1:43 pm
Actually if the beeb and most other news people are to be believed thats exactly what a lot of English headteachers are saying at the moment with respect to A level results.
Workload at Uni though I think varies from course to course. For example, Physics students have a higher workload than Psychology students, and Astrophysics students have more work than...well, anyone.
Thus a blanket statement for any faculty doesn't really hold true. That's not to say though that Science students will ever stop saying that they always have more work, or that Arts students will ever stop saying that Science degrees are for those less literate.
However, saying that Science subjects are just about learning a load of "nonsense facts" is bound to get poeple's backs up. Course difficulty is all relative but it is true that many Science degrees do have a higher worload on average.
Workload at Uni though I think varies from course to course. For example, Physics students have a higher workload than Psychology students, and Astrophysics students have more work than...well, anyone.
Thus a blanket statement for any faculty doesn't really hold true. That's not to say though that Science students will ever stop saying that they always have more work, or that Arts students will ever stop saying that Science degrees are for those less literate.
However, saying that Science subjects are just about learning a load of "nonsense facts" is bound to get poeple's backs up. Course difficulty is all relative but it is true that many Science degrees do have a higher worload on average.
-
Pussycat
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 8:36 pm
Re:
by stan-drews on Fri Aug 15, 2003 2:20 pm
Couldn't agree more that astrophysics have more work than anyone, still it's worth it.
-
stan-drews
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:52 pm
Re:
by highway_to_hell1982 on Fri Aug 15, 2003 2:59 pm
[s]Pussycat wrote on 14:22, 15th Aug 2003:
[s]highway_to_hell1982 wrote on 14:08, 15th Aug 2003:[i]
[s]highway_to_hell1982 wrote on 21:28, 13th Aug 2003:[i]
if youre science, its all a matter of being spoilt with loads of nonsense facts and putting them to practise.
actually, yes i have, and i believe my above statement to be accurate, so dont dismiss it as nonsense buddy[/i]
Based on what exactly? Sounds like a) you didn't do very well, or b) you didnt get much out of it.
Either way I think your statement is nonsense. Very much so.
[/i]
(a) i DID very well in the SIX science modules i did - got at least a 15 in them, but i dropped it in favour of joining arts later because i didnt enjoy it very much
(b) you are right i didnt really get much out of it personally, because it didnt match to any of my personal plans as far as what i want my degree to entail and what i want to do afterwards (not thats its any business of yours).
so take your 'nonsense' remarks back, you dont speak for me
[s]highway_to_hell1982 wrote on 14:08, 15th Aug 2003:[i]
[s]highway_to_hell1982 wrote on 21:28, 13th Aug 2003:[i]
if youre science, its all a matter of being spoilt with loads of nonsense facts and putting them to practise.
actually, yes i have, and i believe my above statement to be accurate, so dont dismiss it as nonsense buddy[/i]
Based on what exactly? Sounds like a) you didn't do very well, or b) you didnt get much out of it.
Either way I think your statement is nonsense. Very much so.
[/i]
(a) i DID very well in the SIX science modules i did - got at least a 15 in them, but i dropped it in favour of joining arts later because i didnt enjoy it very much
(b) you are right i didnt really get much out of it personally, because it didnt match to any of my personal plans as far as what i want my degree to entail and what i want to do afterwards (not thats its any business of yours).
so take your 'nonsense' remarks back, you dont speak for me
-
highway_to_hell1982
Re:
by Starla on Fri Aug 15, 2003 4:38 pm
i did 5 science (though technically maths can be classed as arts too) modules and one history last year...i personally found history hardest because i come from a science background - i wasn't used to taking my own notes, or having to do so much deciding what to revise. (which sounds really pathetic!)
the main thing seemed to be: in arts there's so much you COULD learn, in science there's lots you HAVE to learn...if that makes sense...
the main thing seemed to be: in arts there's so much you COULD learn, in science there's lots you HAVE to learn...if that makes sense...
"We all live in our Fantasy and only endure our Reality..." - R.A.Wilson
-
Starla
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 8:00 pm
20 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests