Australian University Teaching Rankings (2 Viewers)

[...]

eh

last post

i just think that the rankings are unfair to all unis, whether it is to UoW, or to UNSW...
but then again, what has the government done for australian universities eh

 

[Generator]

The Government and the Vice-Chancellors Committee went to great lengths to create a scheme by which universities may be assessed according to their performance in the field of teaching, which though flawed and overly general is as comprehensive a scheme as one could hope given that it was developed in order to determine the distribution of additonal funding.

As for your final paragraph, it's a measure of teaching capabilities across an entire institution, not one that's department or faculty specific.

edit: Also, the government didn't rank the universities, it merely produced the figures and made them available to each institution prior to the distribution of funding (which is still some time off, I believe). The Australian (the paper) had the figures collated into a ranking scheme, not the DEST.

 

[AsyLum]

So I guess that you were saying that the standard of teaching (in general) makes no difference. Rightio.

I would like to highly disagree that 'quality' teaching makes this 'difference' rather i think it comes down to techniques and method of teaching in relation to the students.

You place a lecturer who is a known world renowned expert and he can string together a fairly lively lecture, but if those students who are not receptive to this type of teaching, or if there are environmental factors, things could totally throw this out.

Suggesting that these results represent such an important part of learning tends to suggest a system which is more based upon a concept of teachers rather than students.

(Generally,) any argument can be rationalised, (generally, generally, generally)

Take these as they are, figures and numbers designed to rank and differentiate, does this mean UoW will suddenly find a surge of applicants? Unlikely, the stigma still remains upon it, and all it proves is this inherent factionism of the 8 unis vs the world and their 'need' to reaffirm themselves by comparing to others.

 

[Generator]

#hsc squad strikes again, I see.

Asylum, the ranks were created using official figures from the government that were determined in order to distribute additional funds to those universities that performed well according to the criteria scheme that was developed. It's also a scheme dealing more so with generalities than specifics and it's one that made use of student feedback for 3 of the 7 measures. I also clarified my point in a later post (that teaching does matter). With such points in mind, I really don't see why you would bother to contest a single line in isolation (that's my reading of your post, anyway).

 

[...]

so generator

in your opinion, why did unsw fair so poorly compared other unis

 

[Generator]

so generator

in your opinion, why did unsw fair so poorly compared other unis

In all likelihood it's because of poor(er) student feedback and because other universities may have placed a greater emphasis on teaching programmes than on research. It isn't because the university is poor at teaching, it just may be that others may well be better. Also, this isn't a true reflection of a university's performance in its entirety (or of particular faculties or departments) it's just a measure to determine which institutions are to be awarded greater levels of funding for strong teaching performances as determined by the 7 measures of teaching performance.

 

[...]

but do poor student feedback alone necessary mean the teaching programmes are poor??
and how does one determine whether a uni emphasis on reseach more than teaching??(mind you, for MQ, so far for 2years, more than half of my tutors are doing their masters + phD, that is researching in their respected field)

the 7 measures can be argued though...greatly

 

[Generator]

but do poor student feedback alone necessary mean the teaching programmes are poor??
and how does one determine whether a uni emphasis on reseach more than teaching??(mind you, for MQ, so far for 2years, more than half of my tutors are doing their masters + phD, that is researching in their respected field)

the 7 measures can be argued though...greatly

I did say that the measures were flawed in part (student feedback, the arbitrary nature of the completion/drop out statistical system, etc.), although you are wrong to suggest that they can be argued greatly when they were developed in consultation with those being assessed.

Student feedback is but one of the considerations, and an important one (if flawed in that only one third of the graduating body bothers to respond to such surveys).

Even though one university may focus more upon teaching than research, that is not to say that another focuses more upon research than teaching.

 

[AsyLum]

#hsc squad strikes again, I see.

Asylum, the ranks were created using official figures from the government that were determined in order to distribute additional funds to those universities that performed well according to the criteria scheme that was developed. It's also a scheme dealing more so with generalities than specifics and it's one that made use of student feedback for 3 of the 7 measures. I also clarified my point in a later post (that teaching does matter). With such points in mind, I really don't see why you would bother to contest a single line in isolation (that's my reading of your post, anyway).

Haha, man you really are one bitter person aren't you? 'OGMTHEY GO TO THE SAME IRC ROOM' 'THEY ARE GANGING UP ON POOR OLE ME'

Contrary to your belief, that response was based upon reading from the initial post in this forum, and one which i thought was worth making a comment.

Read through my post again, it has NOTHING to do with socio-economic nor government funding or whatnot.

I contested the point on teaching and its significance within the realm of 'success' and students, based upon these rankings.

Why are you so bitter towards some point of funding and contention upon this economic factor? And dismissing my points on the basis of correcting your perspective AFTER i've posted? Haha, great work, you win.

 

[Sarah]

I would like to highly disagree that 'quality' teaching makes this 'difference' rather i think it comes down to techniques and method of teaching in relation to the students.

You place a lecturer who is a known world renowned expert and he can string together a fairly lively lecture, but if those students who are not receptive to this type of teaching, or if there are environmental factors, things could totally throw this out.

I partially agree with what you've said. Teaching methods employed by teaching staff can make a difference in engaging a student however, there are situations where staff who are experts in their field are too busy to answer students questions or discuss thoughts on a particular topic. I've heard before from lecturers themselves that they're employed by the uni to research and that teaching is only a small component of their time and research is the main factor.

There are also situations where a lecturer may be an expert in their field of studies however can be crap when trying to deliver a lecture.

Overall there's good and bad and you just have to make the most of what you can.

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

(again, a very general comment on rankings, not particularly the intention fo this one, i don think anywayz) going by fail rate is a very bad idea. and going by student satisfaction i dont think gives a good enough picture. One of the best units i did, PSY237, also happened to be my worst, and had an incredibly high fail rate. lots of people hated the lecturer, and many people failed.. im assuming the feedback would have been bad. but i thought the lecture was great.. my view is outweighed

 

[Generator]

Haha, man you really are one bitter person aren't you? 'OGMTHEY GO TO THE SAME IRC ROOM' 'THEY ARE GANGING UP ON POOR OLE ME'

Contrary to your belief, that response was based upon reading from the initial post in this forum, and one which i thought was worth making a comment.

Read through my post again, it has NOTHING to do with socio-economic nor government funding or whatnot.

I contested the point on teaching and its significance within the realm of 'success' and students, based upon these rankings.

Why are you so bitter towards some point of funding and contention upon this economic factor? And dismissing my points on the basis of correcting your perspective AFTER i've posted? Haha, great work, you win.

It isn't a case of me being the poor victim, rather I was just noting that whenever one of you posts and enters into an argument, another person from that channel always pops by in order to offer support. Just for the record, I don't consider that to be bad by any measure, just that it's interesting, even though its more than understandable given the realtime nature of an irc channel. As for being bitter, I would prefer bloodied following on from your response.

As for the rest, I believed that you were talking about my post for the greater part of your post (which is only fair given that it was quoted and that your response flowed quite well), and as such I sought to correct what I considered to be an error, that which seemingly ignored the reason for the release of the figures and the subsequent ranking table. Sorry for the mistake.

As for clarifying my position, I was referring a post of mine that appeared long before you arrived, but once again that was written on the assumption that you were talking about my post. I didn't mean to dismiss your post, I just thought that it was already clear that the measures considered both the manner in which a subject is taught and how receptive the student body may be, and that the figures are only of real use in the determination of funding (with my assertions leading on from there). Sorry.

Feel free to launch another punch if I have made yet another mistake (edit: You're never one to hold back, anyway).

 

[neo o]

and how does one determine whether a uni emphasis on reseach more than teaching??

By the proportion of graduate, masters and phd students studying at the university in comparison to the amount of undergraduates? To be honest, there are quite a few universities with a strong focus upon research in the top ten such as the ANU, Sydney and Melbourne.

BTW, I think that most people would agree that UNSW is geared primarily towards undegraduate degrees and teaching, which in itself isn't a bad thing.

 

[jm1234567890]

BTW, I think that most people would agree that UNSW is geared primarily towards undegraduate degrees and teaching, which in itself isn't a bad thing.

which is why it is strange it performed so poorly.

 

[withoutaface]

But couldn't the lack of so called "spoon feeding" just be a way to rationalise the fact that the lecturers suck, and act as a ruse to turn what is undeniably a bad thing into what is arguably a good thing?
Not saying this is the case, but it's what I'd do if I had a department full of incompetents.

 

[shannonm]

But couldn't the lack of so called "spoon feeding" just be a way to rationalise the fact that the lecturers suck, and act as a ruse to turn what is undeniably a bad thing into what is arguably a good thing?

yeah maybe, maybe not, who cares!

- 3 of the 7 categories were based on student feedback (not all of them!)
- they were "ADJUSTED" to take into account students from low-income families and uai scores (both which obviously would have helped UoW and not helped unsw/usyd)
- how can you gauge whether percentage of students "going on to further full-time study" is a good thing or a bad thing ?

and even if unsw came first, who cares? statistics is total bs anyway

so congrats to the unis who were ranked highly and get a slice of the $250m. lalala

 

[santaslayer]

so generator

in your opinion, why did unsw fair so poorly compared other unis

The question is WHY couldn't it fair poorly against other universities?

The problem about the critics in this forum is that they already ASSUME that universities such as USYD and UNSW are the best in Australia. It is overly difficult to reconcile matters if one does not divorce such a notion from their minds. There is no discussion taking place if one cannot remove assumptions from their arguments.

Yes, I agree, these universities may be older, have more connections and do better in the reputation field, but what we are accounting for is teaching quality.

EDIT: The thing is, the next university got a score way below the first. Do you really think that the removal of those three critera would of done any substantial difference?

 

[poloktim]

The people who argue that UNSW mightn't be any good because they don't spoon feed their students are fuckhead mongs. All knowing, I'm sure. Wollongong far from spoon feeds, trust me.

In any event, all it means is that Wollongong has another piece of garbage which it can use to advertise, they also get extra funding. Taking into account that Sydney universities generally have more money to spend on staff than regional universities do, the fact that a regional university was ranked first should be considered a wake-up call for the others.

All I really want to say is:

Wollongong ranked first. Quit your bitching.

Besides, they're all just Hell anyway.

 

[withoutaface]

2 - Australian Maritime College 30.79

Argggghhhh!

 

[neo o]

yeah

but one should not base their uni preferences(or brag how good their uni is/was) purely on these data
thing is, these numbers mean nothing. A lot of university rankings outside Aust. are done based on post grad research results, not how good their undergrad teaching is.

UNSW falls down there too however. It came in 36th in the world on the Times survey behind ANU, Melbourne and Monash (and just ahead of Sydney and UQ). When the rankings are restricted to the Asia Pacific though, Adelaide, Macquarie and RMIT all have comparable (but lower) scores to UNSW. UNSW falls down to a few of these universities in the individual faculty reviews too (particularly med).

UNSW isn't as good as you'd like to think, though I'm sure some faculties within UNSW are excellent. The survey tends to award universities who maintain a high standard in ALL faculties, while specialist universities tend to go under (probably why RMIT came in last because they have a few really elite faculties like their engineering/arch department)