Talk:Open University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of Universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Miscellaneous

Yesterday, (26th Jan)I put a lot of external links here. I'm sorry you deleted them. You sent me a message telling me not to do external links like that. I won't do it again. Please remember, I'm new here. I put at least an hour's work into those links. The links would help anyone else who wants to fill in the details.

"It consistently ranks amongst the UK's top ten universities." Do we have any source for this?

The 19 subjects with an excellent rating for teaching place the OU among the top 10 universities in the country on this measure. - The Sunday Times University Guide 2003

The Open University does not appear in the table because it operates entirely through distance learning. As a result, measures of spending on libraries and other facilities do not apply, and comparisons with conventional universities on measures such as staffing levels would be misleading The Times Good University Guide Q&A

The OU is a British University NOT just an English one. It has premises in every region of the UK and supplies exactly the same courses to students throughout the whole United Kingdom (and in Europe, Africa and Asia too for that matter). --VampWillow 23:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That would make it a UK university, not just a British one, then. Continental Europe are considered part of Region 9 (the Northeast of England), though Ireland has its own regional centre (Region 12). --Kain 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What does the following mean?

...there is generally no limit on the time which a student may take, although courses cannot be counted after a great number years.

If there's no time limit, how come courses can't be counted after a long time? Loganberry 02:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The text is misleading. There is no fixed number of semesters a student may spend studying, however, some qualifications require that contributory courses were not completed more than, say, four years preiously. The idea is that a student can happily study an eclectic mixture of courses over any number of decades without any problem.
However, if the student wishes to achieve a certain qualification, it is important that the knowledge acquired is current. Otherwise you would have a situation where a student completes 18 biology courses over the duration of, say, three decades, yet expects to be granted a bachelor's degree in biology, even though much of the data is sure to be outdated. rquinn 16:48, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
The only courses I've seen where it is explicitly stated that there is a time limit for inclusion in qualifications, are the computing and IT courses, that can only count for eight years after their final presentation. --Kain 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
To add further to the above, courses at the OU are split into 'levels' and courses at a higher level are likely to requier the student to have studied a particular course at a lower level. As courses are only available for a set period - sometimes five years but up to a maximum of nine, and only one year in certain faculities like Law - and may not be replaced with an equivalent course, then this means that the usefulness of some courses disappears over time. --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 16:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) (who has some 'unused' courses from the 1980's on her OU student record!)

[edit] List of Alumni

There seems to be a sudden rash of editing / adding OU/OUBS alumni. Given that there are a lot of such graduates (including :: cough :: myself) in addition to all the honorary degrees conferred each year, this could get to be a *very* long list very quickly. I believe that either

  • this needs moving to a separate page,
  • a category should be used instead, tagged onto people who are alumni (and thus no list is made), the cat being linked from the page

or

  • there should be no list of alumni (staff nor student) created at all.

--Vamp:Willow 19:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A seperate list is probably a good idea. Although I typically would only list notable alumni, and generally those that were students, not staff. Spinboy 19:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I will create a separate page called List of Open University Alumni which I will link from the Open University page. Fountainofignorance
I think a list of ~12 noteable alumni would be in order, i think if someone like the prime minister of Ethiopia is an OU graduate that is something worth mentioning, and a link to the main alumni article should be included in the section Fasach Nua 19:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ou @ NL

I hate to break it to you, but there is an OU in Holland and in Belgium as well. --Kim Nevelsteen 20:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Are you going to write an article on it? Are you going to mention it on this page? Are you asking for this to be a disambiguation page? Let us know. --rbrwr± 20:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Note to self (or any other non-Dutch speakers): English site here; they use "Open Universiteit Nederland" as their name, even in English. --rbrwr± 20:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
and then it can go in [[Category:Open Universities]] --Concrete Cowboy 16:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are Open Universities all over the world -- but the OU is THE Open University -- the first and the institution that all others are based on.

I'm going to add a link at the top to the Open university listing page, precisely because this UK one is THE OU, so people should realise that it isn't THE ONLY OU. 218.102.71.163 03:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'open'

Just wondering why 'open' has the quotes either side of it in the first sentence. Was going to edit it, but thought I'd better check first, just in case I missed something. Lost Garden 19:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suspect the author was tryng to emphasise the point that open was being used as an adjective relating to a learning philosophy, rather than Open refering specifically to the OU. I would be happy to leave it as is, or remove the quote marks Fasach Nua 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Degree Ceremonies

Is this section still accurate? My sister's MA ceremony was last September and it seemed to me to be a fully fledged graduation ceremony with conferments, honorary degrees etc... Timrollpickering 22:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated this to better reflect the formal position. Basically, at many Universities (many other chartered ones at least) a degree isn't conferred (and therefore cannot technically be claimed to be held) until the ceremony has taken place. The ceremony will usually have the presiding officer formally speak some words conferring the degrees on behalf of the University. However, at the OU, the ceremony is a celebration of degrees technically already conferred. Savirr 14:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting comments

I came to this article after reading Neil Fraser's Discussion of his experiences with OU and was surprised to see that OU was actually considered by some to be more than a degree factory. Well, if nobody reviews his research, and marks it without even seeing it, and that this is condoned at high levels by the university, I know how much credibility I'll give to any degrees from OU...

hmm, disappointing. i found ou via a series of academic papers published by their faculty in the area of the semantic web. the research seems legitimate and peers seem to respect it. presumably a large institution like this has good and bad aspects, but unless Fraser is out to get them -- and it certainly does not look like he is -- something is not right. Burgher 04:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think anyone who works in any university will have come across people like Neil Fraser - "I'm not going to do what I'm asked to do, I'm going to do what I think I should have been asked to do". Part of getting on with any university course is working out what the game is, and playing that game. Some people (often very intelligent in other areas) just don't grasp that, and they have a rotten experience as a result. --ajn (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Generally the OU projects are based on taught modules taken earlier in the degree programme, therefore the technical aspects have already been fully examined and assessed already. In my opinion the point of the project is to prove you can manage projectwork, ie setting realistic timetables, performing background research, impatrially evaluating your own work and of course effectively communicating your results in your thesis. The actual project is somewhat secondary to how you actually approach the problem and what you learn from going through the process. Fasach Nua 09:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The point is that Neil seems to have absolute evidence that the reviewers at OU never read his submissions and yet graded him (poorly) on it anyway. This should be considered unacceptable in any case. However, the management at OU condoned it and made really ridiculous excuses about how it's not customary to read submissions before grading them. I don't think that ajn's comments above make any sense in this context. I've read Neil's blog and there's no question in my mind that he's far smarter than the average bear; in all probability, he's far smarter than his graders. And if research projects are not based on original research, but rather regurgitating what you've already been fed in some class, then it's hardly encouraging original thought, or development of the state of knowledge of mankind. Any university should encourage original research, especially by smart people. This didn't appear to be the case here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.103.88.220 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that Fraser's website contained additional material, comparable to an appendix. There seems to be evidence that this wasn't looked at -- not his actual submission. Perhaps the actual submission was considered so weak (as the marks suggest) that there was no point in the marker looking at superfluous material. I agree with ajn's comments entirely: one of the favourite hobbies of the (often adult) student is claiming that you know more than the lecturers. Every subject gets it. Beginning film studies students think they are experts because they have every copy of Empire and have listened to the director's commentary on the Pulp Fiction DVD. Everyone has their gripes, some justified, but it's not really a good idea to cite individual cases like this when the only source is basically a blog. The JPStalk to me 09:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The question is, was he asked to submit his work by putting it on an external website? That would be incredibly unusual in my experience (I supervise MSc projects at another university), and has obvious problems for auditing. There's no indication in the OU's research project dissertation module regulations (M801) that work put on an external website will be marked or looked at - the module is marked on a series of uploaded assignments (via the OU's eTMA system) and a submitted dissertation (on paper, presumably). Fraser has no way of knowing how often any of that will have been looked at, and by whom. If he decided unilaterally to put most of his work somewhere not specified in the regulations, then it probably won't have been looked at, and for good reason. Material that ought to be marked, ought to be in the report. The OU, like every other UK university, has its examination procedures overseen by external examiners from other institutions. --ajn (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh my, everyone's talking about me! [blush]
With regards to putting work on a website, the supervisor was repeatedly stating that the project was unworkable, too ambitious, unrealistic, etc without ever pointing at anything specific. So I've been trying for months to get him to click on a link which shows the project running live. Since he also seems unable to comprehend the algorithms I developed, I've created interactive web-based demos for him to use. But he simply will not click the link. He just keeps marking the project as impractical.
With regards to the overall quality of the work, there is one entity who did read it and pass judgement on it: Google. They spotted it on their own and made an unsolicited job offer I couldn't refuse. Woo! NeilFraser 21:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academics

Could some smart bunny put something along the lines of:

See also [[Category:Academics_of_the_Open_University]]

at the start of the notable academices section, I cant figure out how it's done! Fasach Nua 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructure

I think this article is getting a bit disjointed, I would like to restructure it something along the lines of:

   * 1 Aims
   * 2 Foundation
   * 3 Qualifications
         o 3.1 Undergraduate
         o 3.2 Postgraduate
         o 3.3 Awards (Degree ceremonies)
   * 4 Personell
         o 4.1 Students
         o 4.2 Notable current and former academics
         o 4.3 Notable graduates
         o 4.4 Associate Lectures
   * 5 Teaching and Assesment
         o 5.1 Teaching methods
         o 5.2 Assessment methods
   * 6 Business school
   * 7 Research
   * 8 In fiction
   * 9 References
   * 10 External links
   * 11 See also

Thoughts? Fasach Nua 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] end

It's ending now. should that b added?--Slogankid 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 21:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Graudates

Wouldn't it be best not to advertise the fact that Myra Hindley studied at Open University, as it is not very good press, even if she is "notable". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.106.149 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and is not advertising. If this were a brochure, or a website designed to advertise the University, then I'd probably agree. However, it's neither of those. The JPStalk to me 21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur with The JPS's comments, however I beleive this that the inclusion of this person is a very positive thing, in that it demonstrates the true openess of this university, in that it has given someone who was regularly described as "the most hated woman in Britain" an opportunity to undertake a tertiarry education. The primary goal of the OU is to open education to all, and I can think of few better examples of this than the work it does in the prisons! Fasach Nua 11:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

Can I just ask why ECAs are not mentioned as part of the assessment process - or are they and I've just misunderstood? --Vertilly 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I've added a little on ECAs - feel free to add more - be bold! Berek 15:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Heh, ok I've added a few words and corrected what ECA stands for. Hope it makes sense! --Vertilly 14:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/p/e/Talk%7EOpen_University_50eb.html"