Stezza, If the cap fits!

A neighbours daughter, at the start of her second year of a BSc/BE course at a major Qld university, was having some trouble with her math. She spent 5 weeks trying to contact a math tutor, for some help.

Not once were her calls returned, or her emails answered.

She chucked it in. Deciding that with that level of support she was unlikely to succeed. She dropped out before having another 6 month HEX debt added to her indebtedness.

That is one less math/physics teacher we have, as that was her goal.

In my opinion the teaching of that "real" subject would be enhanced if at least one tutor was sent packing.

As an engineer myself, I am horrified at the growing number of fairy floss courses proliferating in our universities, but also am pretty disappointed at the lack of commitment today in science departments.

I saw the course notes for a BSc in environmental science at a Gold Coast campus. At the end of the second year they would not be up to year 12 high school math B or C. Is this stuff really worth us paying taxes to produce?

Hasbeen, your comments do have some validity, but they're not entirely fair. I'm currently studying for a B.Eng majoring in electronics and energy systems at Griffith (Nathan, not the GC), so I think I have some qualification to comment on this.

There are a couple of factors that seem to me to be relevant.

The first is that the Qld school system is failing to produce students with a high level of skill in the STEM subjects, particularly maths. This has been widely canvassed and there is some effort being made to address it, I understand. A lack of properly qualified teachers is a serious problem, but so is the lack of parental supervision and a lower school approach to homework (there isn't any) that means kids simply don't get challenged and so develop a poor attitude to study.

Second, the load on first year maths lecturers is high. There were about 500 students in Maths 1A at Nathan last year, which is a compulsory subject for engineering, science, education students specialising in maths and aviation students. The lecturer also teaches the same subject at the GC. In tutorials there were just 2 tutors for over 100 students, meaning they more resembled mini-lectures with tests than genuine tutes.

Third, which I hate to say, is that entry standards to STEM courses are not really up to scratch in my view. Some of the first year courses have expected failure rates of 30%.

Fourth, there are so many distractions for the kids. Mobile devices are in constant use throughout lectures, so it's hard to see how complex concepts are meant to be learnt effectively.

Fifth, attendance rates at lectures are woeful. At times less than 10%.

I sit on our department student consultative committee and I know the faculty are trying to get to grips with better ways to engage students in their own learning, but it's clearly not easy

Hasbeen,

The University of South Australia solved that problem with the Mathematics Help Centre. IIRC it's open around lunchtime every teaching day to assist students with anything they don't understand.

During my Civil Engineering degree I used their servces once, for help with matrix multiplication.

"Fifth, attendance rates at lectures are woeful. At times less than 10%.

I sit on our department student consultative committee and I know the faculty are trying to get to grips with better ways to engage students in their own learning, but it's clearly not easy"

Yes Craig, but that is understandable when there is so little of interest or challenge in the courses.

The student who showed me the course notes for that environmental science course achieved distinction or high distinction in all areas, with only 8 days attendance, & simply regurgitating the notes.

Why would anyone bother getting a BSc from the place, when you were likely to be judged by your peers. I have met some of their graduates, working for water resources, & it is really frightening how little, other than slogans, they learnt.

Perhaps a few dozen less administrators & a few more tutors would help there.

Now that is great Aidan, it sounds like South Oz is getting something right.

I don't care how brilliant you are, you will have some blind spot, which just a little help can brighten. Without that help, darkness everywhere can follow.

The problem is not with the lectures or lecturers, per se, although obviously some have higher levels of teaching skill than others, but with the fact that the content has to be to some extent made suitable for those who are going to be asked to consume it.

It starts with the schools and the woefully inadequate standards that are regarded as acceptable. This is not just state schools, but private ones as well.

The kids are not prepared for the idea of self-directed learning, they have no idea where to start and they are surrounded by distractions, usually with no parents at hand to scaffold the learning process. The unis try to make up for that with initiaives like peer assisted study sessions, which are voluntary tutes assisted by high-achieving more senior students. It works, with kids who attend averaging much better marks, but the ones who really need it don't go.

One of the reasons I chose to leave work and go back to study was to help my own kids learn how to learn and support them to do it, since it was very obvious that the school they were attending had no interest in doing so.

Blaming our unis for the problems our kids face in the society created by the short-sightedness of their grandparents' generation (that would be your contemporaries, Hasbeen) is not the solution. In my own view we need to completely revisit the educational process. Gonski was a joke and never had a chance anyway.

For example, given the lack of home support, perhaps we need to consider increasing the time at school, including additional self-directed learning as a compulsory part of doing an academically oriented program. Perhaps we need to raise the bar for uni entry, so that kids who want to do further study clearly understand it means working harder.

You claim to be an engineer and a sailor. Try to think like it; focus on solutions instead of constantly whining about people who are.

Craig perhaps if they set a higher entrance standard, rather than lowering the standard to what ever it takes to fill their course would help.

Really kids with OP 16, well below average, getting into a BSc course is ridiculous. Even worse is actually giving a BSc to kids who could not pass a year 10 high school math test, if we still actually still had them.