not in lees case or in mine - the degree in both cases was awarded based on the average of 6 units taken in the final year (years 1&2 were a dimploma that you had to pass to enter year 3), the dissertation made up two of these units , while the other four were assessed by a mixture of exam and course work. Lees grades were heading for a non honours pass before he got 86% for the dissertation units but the high score on the dissertation units raised his average to just over the 2:2
Wrong again - as i said four of the 6 year units were examined partly by exam and partly by coursework.
and wrong again the 2nd year performance didnt count towards our degrees , so long as we passed the diplomas that made up year 1 and 2
May be in a good institution in front of good lecturers this might be so - the fact that it wasn't was kind of my point. Dissertation may be the wrong word in lee's case it was a final piece and explanation which was scored across two units.... and in front of lecturers who's buttons can be pushed you can indeed write any old crap so long as it is the right kind of prententious crap
again not so - the year 2 grades didnt count towards the degree at all (neither in my case or lee's)
And I know thats not true from personal experience. I majored in rugby, drinking and women in my first year and failed 5 of the 6 units - I re took 4 and just scraped a pass to go on to year two , in year two I also spent most of my time p***ing my grant against the wall but did slightly more work and passed all the units with a non honours average, but sufficient to get the diploma. In year 3 (the degree year) I got my act together knocked both the drinking to excess and the womanising on the head and worked my arse off , getting a distinction grade on my dissertation , and acing most of the coursework. Unfortunately the exams required knowledge i should have had but didnt from the diploma years which pulled my average down to a 2:1
The bottom line on this is that while i respect that you know how it works now in a decent university , with rigorous and fair lecturers , you don't have the first idea how it worked in our university in the early 90s , while I do because I was there
I've been involved in education for far longer than I have actively been a lecturer. I was often the external industry consultant for photography courses (both BA and HND) validated by Lancaster, Falmouth, Bournemouth and Leeds universities, and Hugh Baird college in Bootle (which is the only FE college I've been course consultant at) - this dates back more than 13 years. I have no direct experience of higher education in the 90s... not as staff, or external consultancy however. I ahve as a student though, and I saw no evidence of that level of incompetence. To the best of my professional knowledge of higher education courses in the arts (all modesty aside, not inconsiderable ) I'm not aware of any Honours courses that have only taken third year grades into consideration when awarding degrees within that 13 year period, and I'm not aware of any massive changes how degrees have been awarded in the previous 10 before that. The only exception to that rule is HND and FdA Top Up years, where only that year's work is assessed for award. However, in order to obtain a place on a HND or FdA Top Up year, you have to pass the HND or FdA with commendation or higher.
If what you suggest is true, then A) Thank god that's the case now, and B) It may explain your less than enthusiastic attitude to arts based higher education, and your attitude overall. You have to admit that such an experience would have inevitably coloured your perception of the value of such courses, and hence given you a staggering amount of bias in such a debate. I think that's pertinent because what you are suggesting could simply not happen in any degree course in this country now. There are simply too many checks, and too much administrative data gathered to make such a course untenable, both financially and pedagogically.
It's also pertinent because what you are suggesting is not the norm, despite the anecdotal nature of your argument suggesting it is. Nor has it BEEN the norm. Art education in my experience, and that of my colleagues who pre-date me by some time, is one of extreme rigour, and hard work with diligent assessment and a great deal of external industry liaison to ensure the relevance, and usefulness of such courses. This came under even more strict scrutiny during the Blair years when "widening Participation" became fashionable, as all courses needed to be able to demonstrate vocational relevance. This is something art based courses have always struggled to do, as whether an artist is commercially (or otherwise) successful is largely down to THEM, not US, as there are no "jobs" as an artist.
While I have MANY problems with higher education in this country right now, one thing I am certain of, is that there are more checks, audits, reports and statistically obsessive management than ever before. Any lecturers, courses or universities behaving as you suggest would have their financial plugs pulled faster than a flaming toaster.
If you tried to run that beer bottle BS past me.. I'd just laugh at you, and advise you to either do some work, or carry on wasting your tuition fees.... up to you.... but the latter would not result in your obtaining a degree
Incidentally.. while the college you mention may have been absorbed into Man Met... I can assure you Man Met remains one the best degree courses in this country right now. The staff are very research heavy for post grad, and very industry relevant for honours.
...erm...
