Note of informal meetings with groups
of students at the University of Oxford on 30 March 2009
PARTICIPANTS
Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee:
Mr Phil Willis MP, Chairman
Mr Tim Boswell MP
Dr Evan Harris MP
Mr Graham Stringer MP
Mr Ian Stewart MP
Students from the University of Oxford:
Mr Terrance Ayebale (3rd Year, Engineering Science,
St Anne's)
Mr Alex Bulfin (2nd Year, English, University)
Ms Orla Byrne (Finalist, Law, St Anne's)
Ms Rachel Cummings (OUSU[1]
Vice President—Women)
Mr Pieter Hermans (4th Yr, Maths & Philosophy,
Worcester)
Mr Ben Hemingway, (Finalist, PPE,[2]
St Anne's)
Mr Ramandeep Kaur (Finalist, Law, St Anne's)
Mr Martin Lennon, (Finalist, PPE, St Anne's
College)
Mr James O'Connell-Lauder (2nd Year, PPE, University)
Mr Conan McKenzie (Lady Margaret Hall)
Ms Diamanto Mamuneas, (2nd Year, Biological
Sciences, St Anne's)
Mr Jack Matthews (2nd Year Earth Sciences, St
Peters and OUSU)
Ms Ellen Maunder (Finalist, English, St Anne's)
Mr Jonathan Medland (3rd Year, History &
Politics, Queen's)
Mr Laurence Mills (2nd Year, History & Politics,
Magdalen)
Mr Sanjay Nanwani (2nd Year, PPE, St Peter's)
Mr Zim Nwokora (4th Year D Phil, Politics. St
Anne's)
Mr Robert Ritter (D Phil, English)
Ms Portia Roelofs (2nd Year, PPE, Queen's)
Ms Helene Suttle (3rd Year D Phil, Materials,
Oriel)
Mr Joseph Wales (2nd Year, Maths, St Hugh's)
Mr Matthew Watson (Queen's)
Mr Adam Whitley (MSc, Mathematical & Computational
Finance St Anne's)
Committee Members put a number of questions
to groups of students and this note records the points made in
reply.
FACTORS INFLUENCING
APPLICATIONS TO
OXFORD
Mr Stringer asked the students what and who
had influenced their decision to apply to Oxford. Several students
in one group had found that the experience of visiting the university—for
example, on open days—very helpful. In particular, the opportunity
to spend several days staying in college and meeting "real"
students already at the university was important and had helped
them to "like the environment".
Although one student in another group had originally
decided to go to another university, his teacher at school had
convinced him to look more closely at Oxford. When he was offered
a place, he said that it was very much a case of "you don't
say no to Oxford". Another student had originally targeted
Cambridge, having been encouraged by his teachers at school from
year 9 onwards. However, when the student learned more about the
Oxford course he realised that it was the best for him so he changed.
A student in another group explained that both
his parents had been to Oxford so he knew all about it before
coming. He acknowledged, however, that he had not given it much
thought, had not expected to get a place and so had also looked
at other universities. He liked the tutorial system at Oxford
which he found beneficial. In the case of another student, one
parent had been to university and a large proportion of students
from his school had also gone on to university so he also expected
to go. Although he had originally applied after an Opening Evening
at school, he did not gain admission on his first application.
However, he had been very certain that Oxford was where he wanted
to go and had found it unique all the way through in terms of
the kind of English course he was studying. Another student pointed
out that, when he was making choices, he realised that not that
many universities did History and Politics. When he looked at
Oxford he knew he wanted to go there because of the atmosphere
he experienced.
One student in another group explained that
advice from his school teacher that Oxford offered the promise
of a world class education had been very influential. He had also
valued the opportunity to engage with academics in tutorials.
Another student explained that the fantastic
library system at Oxford and the teaching style was important
to him, because he liked to talk and it matched his preferred
way of learning. The college system was seen as beneficial as
was the bursary system, which some students described as world
class. One student found he was more comfortable with the Oxford
tutorial system because he had been frustrated in the 6th form
where he had not been able to give his point of view and get the
kind of personal attention Oxford gave. Another student had specifically
wanted to do PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) and, although
some other universities did it, the Oxford course was the most
appealing.
Mr Stringer asked about specific influences
such as school or careers guidance. The students in one group
explained that their teachers had suggested they look at Oxbridge
and they had visited as a consequence. In one case, the school
now organised a general visit for pupils, which was very helpful.
One student had been encouraged by being involved in his school's
"Gifted and Talented" scheme and because the former
head of sixth form at his school also had contacts at the university.
The students did not consider that the careers
service had, in general, been very influential when making their
university choices, although in some cases they were made aware
of the benefits Oxford offered in relation to postgraduate and
employment opportunities. Although parents, friends and tutors
had been more influential than careers contacts for the majority
of students, one student had a good careers adviser at school
who had encouraged her to apply. Overall, all the students in
the group considered that the key influence was not careers advice
but the opportunity to visit the university and meet students
and tutors.
Students in another group had mixed experiences
of specialist careers advice. One student had received good careers
advice at school but once he had gone to the local further education
college he found less advice was available. Another student found
that careers help was provided when he was making his subject
choices at A-level and for university, but advice in relation
to the specific university was seen as a personal preference.
Students in another group said that the university's
prospectus had been useful in giving basic information about colleges
and also the lifestyle. The "Alternative prospectus"
(ie one produced by students in each college) was also praised
because it offered a refreshing take from the students. One student
commented that schools differed substantially in the approach
they took to applications and visits: some were very much more
proactive in bringing or sending their pupils to open days.
Several students considered that they could
have been given more detailed information. For example, one student
had found it hard to find sufficient information and guidance
about the college and university before coming for interview.
Another had found the fact that he already knew someone studying
at the university before coming for interview was invaluable.
Although there was general agreement in the group that more information
could be provided, there was also agreement that only so much
information could be published and it was important to combine
it with a visit.
One student said that the interview, which had
lasted three days at the College, was seen by several as a great
opportunity for the university to test a prospective student out
as well as assist him or her to decide whether the university
was suitable.
Students in one group considered that it was
up to the university to get out and to engage with students who
might not usually apply. One explained that Oxford was a welcoming
and diverse university and that many myths that Oxford was posh
were untrue. Another had come to Oxford thinking that private
school students would not like him but had found this was not
true and the tutors treated all students the same. Several students
considered that it is important to target teachers in schools
and colleges because their knowledge of universities was often
30 years out-of-date or based on the "History Boys",
which promoted the wrong idea about Oxford.
EXPERIENCES AFTER
STARTING AT
OXFORD UNIVERSITY
Mr Stringer asked the students about their experience
after they came to Oxford. Students in one group commented that,
once at the university, the Freshers' Week guide was useful, giving
information about the kinds of workload to expect—for example,
hours and numbers of tutorials.
One student said that he had focused on a particular
course he wished to do and had been unconcerned about the different
teaching environment, which was in marked contrast to that he
had experienced before coming to university. He commented that
it had come as a bit of a shock to find that he had to attend
four different tutorials each week, with each tutor reviewing
progress. A student in another group had been shocked at the level
of work involved and the amount of pressure placed on students.
Another explained that his college was pretty strict if a student
was not at upper second honours standard. He had been surprised
at how many "posh kids" there are and commented that
Oxford was a bit of a bubble and that the bubble was not representative
because even the state school kids appeared "really posh".
In contrast students in another group considered
that there had been no major surprises. Each of them had, in general,
been told what to expect when they arrived including, for example,
the likely number of contact hours each term, which one student
explained was, in his case, between eight and fifteen hours. Several
agreed that it took time to get used to the self-motivation needed
to be successful at Oxford.
Another student described how the college "parenting
scheme" had been very helpful to him. Before he started,
students in the year above became his "college parents",
got in touch and helped the incoming students with information
and informal guidance. The benefit was that they provided copious
information.
When asked what would happen if a student missed
going to tutorials, the general comment was that students did
not miss them and that everyone went to tutorials.
BURSARIES
Mr Boswell asked students whether the Oxford
bursary system worked well and if bursaries were fairly allocated.
The students considered that "Oxford Opportunity" bursaries
were very good, generous, quickly administered and that the application
process was non-intrusive. In contrast, those applying for individual
college bursaries found the process intrusive requiring a detailed
breakdown of a student's expenditure. It was suggested that this
could put off potential applicants for bursaries.
One student said that he did not understand
the bursary system. Another stated that study at Oxford without
a bursary would not be possible but noticed that there was a disparity
of up to £1000 depending on which year a student started
his or her degree and considered that this was unfair. The students
in another group agreed that in the case of a student who required
financial help during term time it was a matter for the student
to seek help from his or her college—in such a case a student
would go to the domestic bursar. One student commented that at
the college level decisions about financial help could be personal—in
other words, team players were more likely to obtain help and
more quickly.
STUDENT DEBT
Mr Boswell asked if students had been concerned
about debt before coming to university, especially given the job
prospects for graduates since the start of the recession. One
student answered that, although he had been just above the threshold
for claiming a bursary, he was not worried about paying off an
estimated £20,000 student debt on leaving university because
the loan was not like a bank loan and could be paid back when
creditor could afford it. When and how a student would pay off
the student loan was more of a concern than the interest rate
on the loan. The group agreed that how much a student was concerned
about debt depended on his or her friends and family—if
everyone in a student's peer group was in the same position debt
was not an issue. One student commented that the student loan
system assumed that a second child going to university was not
an additional financial burden on a family and was slow to take
this factor into account.
Students in another group were not overly concerned
about debt. One student had a training contract lined up after
graduation and was therefore not concerned about paying off a
loan.
A student in another group was, however, concerned
that the issue of debt was on students' minds because of problems
with graduate jobs, but conceded that that it was not necessarily
a "day-to-day worry". The same student thought that
the extra cost of studying at Oxford (because it was an affluent
city and because of the collegiate structure) might put students
off applying. Another student added that in his experience (coming
from a relatively affluent background) potential students were
not put off applying to Oxford by debt but by the perception that
Oxford was full of toffs. A student working with groups of potential
students from less affluent backgrounds considered they were concerned
about debt and that this was a problem across the board and not
just for Oxford applications. One student in this group commented
that the level of interest on student loans was a concern because
loans accrued interest even if they were not at the earning threshold
to start to pay the loan back.
This group confirmed that paid employment in
term time was strongly discouraged by the university. One student
said this meant he had to work very hard in vacations to earn
money.
Mr Boswell asked the students how much costs
varied between colleges, and whether this was clear before students
applied. The students in one group considered that costs varied
massively between colleges. A student in another group, who had
been involved in asking colleges to publish their costs for potential
students, considered that colleges had been slow to respond.
The students in another group examined what
factors might lead to a student dropping out of a course. It was
suggested that finance alone was rarely the cause, but that different
colleges might be more or less academically harsh and, if students
were required to repeat a year because of personal problems, this
could be a huge financial burden. One student pointed out that
financial support varied between colleges, but there was also
a central funding office. The students in this group considered
that different colleges had very different costs and this could
be a surprise to new students.
STUDENT EXPERIENCE
Mr Stewart asked what constituted a good student
experience at university. All the groups which considered the
issue began with academic considerations, in particular they considered
that the quality of the teaching available, the availability of
staff, staff who could explain themselves and help the students
to develop intellectually, were at the heart of a good university
experience. A number of students referred to the need to feel
challenged and to develop academically as individuals. Several
students considered that the tutorial system was important because
it not only allowed tutors to identify problems and help to develop
students, but also because it ensured a challenging environment.
As well as academic considerations the students
identified the existence of a community environment, as manifested
in the college system. Most—but not all— considered
that the Oxford collegiate system was a huge plus because it enabled
students and their tutors to know each other and also because
the small environment meant easier and closer relationships and
friendships.
Mr Stewart asked the students to identify items
that they would like to change or improve. The following were
listed. First, some identified better connections with the local
community. Second, others suggested more support for external
activities. Third, it was suggested that better support for mental
health problems among students was needed. It was noted that colleges
could not afford to employ mental health experts individually,
yet pastoral care was a college responsibility. Fourth, some called
for better integration between the senior members of the college
and the junior common room. Fifth, there was a call for better
support—particularly funding—for postgraduate students.
Some students also said that there needed to
be more emphasis and support for study skills. Several said that
the initial support given to students arriving at Oxford was inadequate.
There appeared to be an assumption that because these were clever
students they could be thrown in at the deep end. More emphasis
on study skills at the beginning of their time at university would
have been welcome.
There was also criticism of the hours of study.
All the students considered that they worked much harder than
students at other universities, but nearly all were happy to do
so because they believed that the degree that they would obtain
from Oxford would be of considerable benefit through their subsequent
careers. They believed that employers recognised students at Oxford
were stretched more than students from elsewhere
Several students thought that the reason they
worked so hard was in large part because of the intimate tutorial
system where there was nowhere to hide if the student had not
done sufficient work. But the students recognised that the tutorial
system was expensive, and that it would take an increase in the
funding of the university to be able to maintain it. Several of
the students said that they were involved in seeking alumni donations
and that maintenance of the tutorial system was one of the benefits
that they had to secure by obtaining more donations from alumni.
One student identified the collegiate system
as an issue. It was pointed out that colleges varied in the amount
of tutorial support they were able to give students and that this
appeared to depend on the relative wealth of the college. But
it was noted that even relatively poor colleges were able to provide
ad hoc support to students as they needed it.
TEACHING MODEL
AT OXFORD
UNIVERSITY
Mr Willis asked about the teaching model used
at the University of Oxford. The students in the groups he questioned
liked the teaching arrangements at Oxford, with appreciation for
the tutorial system cited in particular. However, one group said
that they recognised that it was not the be-all-and-end-all that
it was sometimes made out to be. The groups identified as the
principal problem a significant variation in quality. It was pointed
out that sometimes a student was taught by someone who ran the
course, other times by a PhD student who did not know the course.
One student in another group commented that in a tutorial the
student had the opportunity to delve into details that could not
be covered during lectures. A student in another group said that
the teaching model at Oxford was hard to beat sitting one-on-one
with a tutor who was asking questions that got the best out of
the student. He described it as phenomenal and something that
that was not available in the US. Another described the teaching
system as amazing.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
TEACHING AND
RESEARCH
Mr Willis asked about the relationship between
teaching and research. One student commented that the advantage
of having teachers who were research active was that they were
up-to-date with developments in the field. Another noted that
it was not important for teachers to be up-to-date in all fields—for
example, when teaching Kant, most of the best books on Kant were
written in the 1930s and 1950s. In another group most students
supported being taught by someone who was a leader in the field.
One student commented that a researcher in the field could be
more critical of a student's work. It was noted that, despite
some teachers not being the best, knowing that they were leaders
in the field made it worthwhile working hard to get the most out
of the tutorials. A student in another group said that he had
had a low expectation of the quality of the teaching, because
lecturers were not recruited for their teaching ability but their
research ability. Another commented that being an expert in the
field was more important than having good teachers.
QUALITY OF
TEACHING
Mr Willis asked about the quality of teaching.
There was agreement that the quality of teaching was generally
high. However, it was pointed out that some of the lecturers and
tutors would have benefited from teacher training. It was noted
that most colleges offered optional training. The students in
one group considered that teacher training should be made compulsory
for new tutors. A student in another group was happy with the
quality of the teaching, and another commented that students usually
received good tuition. One student commented that the quality
of teaching was not good enough. He pointed out that students
paid £3,000 per year and would be in debt until they were
30 years old. He continued that eight out of 10 tutors were good,
but was concerned that that he was taught by some graduate students
who were not qualified to teach.
Dr Harris also asked whether the students were
satisfied with the quality of teaching they received. One student
said that a request that lectures be podcast as reference material
had been refused. The students in the groups considered that this
decision reflected resistance to change by lecturers who liked
an audience to perform to. The students all agreed that the opportunity
for question and answer sessions at the end of lectures—although
not universally offered—was a valued element of teaching
provision.
DEGREE STRUCTURE
Dr Harris asked for the students' views on the
structure of their degree programme. All the students in one group
agreed that they worked intensively during each 8-week term and
that they undertook a considerable amount of work outside of term
time. Two students said they took only two weeks off from academic
studies during the long summer break. Students explained that
their lectures were supplemented by tutorials—in which they
were likely to be taught in pairs—and private study.
Dr Harris asked whether the students were satisfied
with the examination structure. One student saw the current system
of sitting final examinations at the end of the degree programme
as optimal. Two students expressed a preference for Oxford's examination
structure to be reformed such that examinations in each year of
a degree programme contributed towards the degree class awarded.
One student considered that the university had recognised the
need for change as coursework was beginning to feature more prominently
as a component of individual degree programmes.
Dr Harris commented that drop-out rates at Oxford
were relatively low. One student suggested that this was because
students struggled through due to pressure from the university
and that the drop-out figures hid the number of students that
took a respite year in order to recover from the extreme stress
that the short teaching term inflicted. These students either
repeated a year or continued their degree programme at the point
they left it.
DEGREE QUALITY
Dr Harris asked the students whether they considered
that having a degree from Oxford would be advantageous in terms
of their future employment prospects. In response the students
pointed out that the tutorial system provided for the development
of written and oral communication skills. One student suggested
that, in the current job market, employers would be less interested
in a prospective employee's degree class and the higher education
institution relative to the candidate's ability to demonstrate
core communication skills and work experience relevant to the
employment opportunity. Several students considered that an upper
second honours from the University of Oxford indicated a higher
level of academic achievement that an upper second honours from
a non-Oxbridge university. They agreed that an Oxbridge degree
indicated a different type of "learning experience".
PLAGIARISM
Dr Harris asked whether the students recognised
plagiarism as a problem. No students were aware of plagiarism
taking place amongst the undergraduate population. It was agreed
that it would be more trouble than it was worth and that the close
relationship between undergraduate student and supervisor would
mean that plagiarism would be immediately identifiable. Several
students pointed out that it would be difficult to submit plagiarised
work for assessment. In particular, studies in disciplines such
as English were self-directed and it would be unlikely that other
individuals would be undertaking the same programme of work. It
was also suggested that plagiarism would be self-defeating in
the long-term as tutorial essays did not contribute to degree
results and individuals' examination performance was likely to
be adversely affected by lack of engagement with background material.
Students in one group explained that in the
undergraduate population it was common practice for students to
look at one another's essays. It was agreed that the university
had clearly laid out what did and did not constitute plagiarism,
and one student reported that plagiarism would be very difficult
as supervisors invariably set different essay title to one another.
Students were aware of the existence of computer systems to identify
plagiarised work, and cited peer review as defence against scientific
fraud.
One student in another group said that plagiarism
was not socially acceptable and all students in the group agreed
that supervisors would instantly recognise the content of two
essays as being the same. They noted that supervisors often set
different essay titles and, as tutorial work was not assessed,
saw little point in attempting to plagiarise work. It was also
agreed that even if plagiarism went unnoticed it would not be
possible to defend this content orally when grilled in supervisions.
It was suggested that it would be relatively easy to copy laboratory
reports unnoticed, however, and that plagiarism generally would
be easier to get away with in science subjects.
March 2009
1 Oxford University Students Union. Back
2
Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Back
| 
