University College London
Computer Science Department
University College London
Computer Science Department
The meeting took place on 23rd May in 229. About 25 third year students and 6 lecturers attended (including SRW, JW, MAS, GR, GK, MS, PAS, JAC, SH).
Students had widely differing mathematical backgrounds which caused problems for some plus some repetition of material. The second year maths course had been a shambles.
B224 was felt to be an excellent course with the practical element being "just right". There was a good and consistent sense of direction to the course. Very warm words were spoken.
There was praise also for C327 and especially for the method of delivery.
There was a heavy coursework load in year 3.
There was a need to look at prerequisites on core modules from the point of view of joint honours students (who may not have done supposedly core modules in previous years). CS/Cog students felt that they did not have enough maths for the third year AI course.
There was a lot of variability with differing levels of helpfulness from different lecturers.
Students appreciated courses in which they were actively involved. B224 was felt to be excellent; interactive, clear goals, clear build-up of knowledge and regular assessed coursework. Ben Bacarise's first year course had been excellent. The mini exercises were appreciated.
There was discussion concerning course texts and printed notes. Printed notes were generally appreciated though it was agreed that these might discourage book reading and lecture attendance. However, it was felt that irrespective of this stimulating lecturers got good attendance. A good compromise might be to make the notes wider than the course so that students had to attend to discover what would be examined. There was general acceptance that it was reasonable to expect students to buy one text per course. Courses must be designed so that just one text was needed. Students had a right to expect texts to be relevant. Lecturers should refer students to particular sections of the text. "Study packs" were suggested as an alternative to text books. However the department had tried these and they were not cost-effective.
It was suggested that the programming advisory service keep one copy of each course text.
It was felt that there was a lack of books in the library to support final year projects.
Students were not clear that the department responded to course assessment forms. It was pointed out that the responses tended to be bland with few constructive suggestions.
Very few students had received feed-back from course assessment (despite departmental encouragement that this should happen). Mid-term course assessment with feed-back would be much appreciated.
The staff/student consultative committee seems to lack a sense of direction with the roles of representatives not being clearly explained and no-one being introduced to anyone else.
The building was generally felt to be uninspiring. The basement areas were depressing with no natural light and rather too many natural smells. The lack of a common room was a major contributory factor. In general the whole environment did not foster a sense of ownership or fellowship. This meant that students did not get to know each other easily.
The general depressing and unfriendly atmosphere was felt to be a major factor in discouraging women from studying in the department.
The Pearson Society had more-or-less ceased to exist. Properly run in might do much to foster a sense of fellowship in the department. The department should try to encourage this.
There was some shortage of workstations and it was felt there was still a role for dumb terminals for reading email. It was estimated that 20% of workstation usage was recreational.
There was some abuse of cross-logins with the finalists suffering as their machines were known to be faster.
There was general agreement that such a society was a "good thing". Susannah McGuinness kindly volunteered to assist with setting-up such a society.