NOTES OF A WRAP-UP MEETING HELD ON 30 MAY 2007

Year 2 - BSc/MSc/MEngi COMPUTER SCIENCE

Present: GAR (Chair), NJ (Minutes) and 22 students

1. COMP2007 Concurrent Programming

It was thought that one particular question was too long. This meant that there was not enough time for the students to read and absorb the question and do justice answering it. Some students ran out of time as a result.

2. COMP2010 Compilers

A similar issue to the one relating to COMP2007 (above) was raised. The ‘JLX???CHECK’ was perceived to be too long. It was also pointed out that only 4 weeks to revise was a very short time in order to absorb all the information taught in the class, and the exam had fallen very early in the main exam period. GAR

3. COMP2010 Networks, Databases and Graphics

The exam was perceived to be too extensive, with too much information to absorb in the time available. The course was also considered to cover too much ground for the students to be able to successfully revise for it. The students also thought that the course seemed ‘thrown together’. GAR explained that the course had been designed to cover core material, which needs fitting into the syllabus. He thought that maybe it was time to review the content of the courses. They were created to ‘fill gaps’ and maybe the goals needed to be re-examined.

The lecturer on the networks section of the course was not a networks specialist, and the students were unhappy about this, as he did not seem to be familiar with the notes (which were prepared by a previous lecturer).

4. Online Module Evaluation Questionnaires

The students would like the questionnaires to be available for them to fill in after the exams, rather than earlier in the year.

5. Harder Exams                             

Some students commented that the exams seemed harder than some past papers. GAR explained that our external examiners had asked for exam questions to be based on ‘problem-solving’ rather than ‘bookwork’. He suggested that some of the more complex questions were a reaction to this.

6. Length of Exams

The students were finding it difficult to complete exams in the two-and-a-half hours given. This could be due to the increase in problem-solving type questions.

7. Study Space and Facilities

One student thought that the library opening hours were too short.

There was a perceived lack of space for group-work. GAR had raised this issue at faculty level. There is a lack of space in general in the Engineering Sciences faculty. We will need to wait and see if the new building currently being constructed in front of the Roberts Building will make a difference in this regard.

8. Examination Timetable Issues

The students had experienced a bunching together of exams near to the end of their exam period. GAR explained that the department has very little control ove rhte examination timetable – and that this year the problems with scheduling had been exacerbated by the use of new timetabling software.

9. MSci/ MEng

One student queried whether students could choose whether to graduate with an MSci or an MEng. The department is now only admitting students to the MEng. This changed when the department moved to the Engineering Sciences Faculty from Maths and Physical Sciences three years ago.

10. Final Year Projects

GAR advised the students to start thinking about their projects soon, if possible to try and secure a supervisor over the next few weeks. Lists of possible supervisors and project ideas can be found on the third and fourth year students pages, as well as the MSc CS pages. It was confirmed that students could work on a project with another department, as long as the project was a feasible Computer Science project. Students must decide what project they want to do by week 2 of the first term next year.

11. Model Answers

One student pointed out that although he understood why the department did not make model answers available, their unavailability made it difficult to work out how much to write to get all the marks for an answer.

Close of Second Year Wrap-up