DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
Undergraduate Wrap-up Meetings
Held on Wednesday 1st June 2005 in Room 1.03, MPEB
Present: Graham Roberts, (Chair), Nicola Jarvis, Jill Saunders (Minutes), Undergraduate Students all years.
1 First Year Wrap-up
1.1 Option choices
There was an enquiry about available options inside the CS department. GAR confirmed that next year one of the ancillary courses, Multimedia Computing, should be available to year one students.
1.2 Prolog
There was a mixture of views on the teaching of Prolog. The students were unsure if it was as useful as C, as required in Industry. It was suggested that Prolog’s
usefulness in a professional context could be highlighted. Some considered the introduction too basic. GAR explained that it was chosen rather than C as C was similar to Java. It was good for the students to experience contrasting languages.
1.3 Exams
Some students had found that taking all the exams at the end of the year was very stressful, and asked if some could be taken at the end of term 1. GAR explained that the exam period was fixed by College, and that there was no possibility of this changing.
1.4 Maths B045
It was reported that some students found this course had seemed inaccessibly hard, with the result that they had given up on it.
1.5 Computer Architecture
It was felt that there was too much material covered in this course.
1.6 Communication
It was felt that when there were two or more lecturers teaching a course that there was a lack of communication between them. Follow-on from one to another was not felt to be particularly good.
1.7 Research Awareness
GAR asked the students how much they knew about the research carried out in the department. While students were aware that UCL is a research university, few had any real idea of the research done in the CS dept. and were not able to name our main research areas. They also did not understand the relationship between research and teaching, and the influence that has on the way courses are organised and run. It was suggested that the 1st year induction programme includes an introduction to research in the department.
(Second year students also lack awareness about research in the department.)
2 Second Year Wrap-up
2.1 Database courses
Students questioned whether it was wise to run two database courses separately. Some topics had been covered twice. GAR explained that as part of the course restructuring exercise that took place last year, the networking material had been grouped together. One course covered SQL and the other networking.
2.2 Exam Papers
It was felt that the sample papers for compilers and concurrent programming were not representative of what came up in the exam. There had also been concerns about logic and database theory, as it appeared different to past papers and all questions were compulsory. GAR pointed out that both are new courses, and that students were supposed to know the syllabus and not just rely on sample or past papers. Degree level papers are not like A-Level papers, and are also marked differently.
The students had noted several mistakes in papers. GAR – all mistakes are reported to the exams office by the invigilators, and if necessary, the department can then make staff aware, and reinvigorate the exam paper production systems.
2.3 Scheduling of Exams
Some students were unhappy that they had had to sit two exams on the same day. GAR explained that the department had no control over the scheduling of exams, which was done centrally by the examinations office.
2.4 Exam Technique
Some students had been hard pressed to finish exams in the allotted time. GAR advised students to improve their writing skills to get across key points. In answer to a query, he confirmed that it was department policy not to provide model answers for past papers, although exam questions can be worked through in lectures.
2.5 Style of Exam Questions
It had been noticed by students that some exam papers have questions where the answers to later parts depend on the answers to previous parts. If the first part of a question cannot be answered, then the rest of the parts cannot be completed.
This was noted by GAR but it was pointed out that this style of question is entirely valid.
2.6 Return of Coursework
Students had not been happy about the late return of coursework. GAR admitted that this was a problem. Solutions were being discussed at the Departmental Teaching Committee.
2.7 Availability of Personal Tutors
Some students had experienced difficulties arranging tutorials. GAR confirmed that the tutorial system was currently under review.
3 Third Year Wrap-up
3.1 Message Board
It was suggested that the dept look into setting up a web-based message board for vital information.
3.2 Programming Language Theory
Several students noted that there are some areas of Computer Science that are not covered in any courses, in particular in the 3rd and 4th years. Several course ideas were highlighted including an advanced course on programming language theory and also a course covering a range of languages and programming paradigms. GAR commented that these were good suggestions that should be discussed at the Teaching Cttee. However, the department has limited resources for putting on new courses and wants to focus teaching to match the main research areas in the department.
3.3 Year 3 General Organisation
There were mixed views on whether the year 3 had gone better than year 2. MACS students (who do not do the group project) had perhaps found it easier to get to grips with the individual project; some CS students had found the balance of workload within their groups was unfair, and/or that the projects had been un-inspiring.
3.4 3C16
The timing of 3C16 was considered unhelpful as it could have been useful for project work if it was in term 1 rather than term 2. It was further suggested that it could be taught in Year 2, perhaps taking one of the two slots for option courses.
3.5 MACS Project
Some BSc MACS students would have preferred to do a maths project. GAR explained that this was not currently possible but agreed to raise the issue. MSci MACS does include a maths project. Some students felt that communications and co-ordination between Maths and CS could be improved.
3.6 Operating Systems/ Concurrency
It was pointed out that the Operating Systems course duplicated teaching done by Cecilia in year 2. It would have been better to allow the year group to take the new Concurrency course. This issue will not arise again because the next year 3 will switch to the new arrangements.
3.7 MACS Option Choices
BSc MACS students would have liked to have more choice of CS options in year 3.
3.8 Computational Complexity
People questioned why Computational Complexity was a compulsory course. GAR explained that it was core CS material that everyone should cover.
It was suggested that Theory II and Computational Complexity could be merged and taught in year 2, so freeing up space for CS options in Year 3.
3.9 Difficulty of Courses
It was noted that certain courses seemed exceptionally tough, for example Computational Complexity was described as 'very scary.' GAR pointed out that all syllabuses and exams were overseen and reviewed by external examiners. Also, a good examination paper should be about problem-solving not bookwork.
3.10 Research Papers
The students thought that more material could be based around research paper material. Courses should include papers in reading lists as well as books.
3.11 Out of Hours Computer Access
Students would like access to the labs at weekends. GAR reported that this was impossible due to resource and health and safety constraints.
3.12 Access to 7th and 8th Floors of MPEB
There are still no entry phones to the upper two floors. GAR reported that these should eventually appear.
4 Fourth Year Wrap-up
4.1 Job Prospects
The students had noticed that many employers asked for a 2:1 degree or above. GAR - As MSci students had to work to a higher average to continue on the MSci programme, it was thought all fourth years should be well capable of achieving a 2:1.
4.2 MEng/ MSci
At the time of the wrap-up, the department still did not have faculty approval to award MEng.
4.3 Choice of Courses
There was thought to be a good choice of courses, but students still had to combine third and fourth year courses due to timetable constraints.
4.4 General Perceptions of the 4th Year
The students agreed that the material covered in 4th year courses was a step up in difficulty from third year courses. They also agreed that material learned in earlier years all came together in the fourth year to give a wider perspective on Computer Science as a whole.
4.5 Programming Issues
It was felt that it was possible to emerge from the course knowing very little programming. The students would have liked to have more C and C++ covered as it seemed like the job market required a broader knowledge of programming. More practical aspects as a whole in the third and fourth years would have been appreciated.
4.6 Careers Guidance
The students asked about careers guidance. GAR - Chris Clack is the department careers tutor, UCL has central careers services. It is up to the students to do the legwork with regard to networking, making contacts and searching the web etc.
+44 (0)20 7679 7214
