Lets talk tutes
It seems that the Oxford tutorial is under threat once again - and students are not even being consulted. It was confirmed by history JCC this week that fourteen tutorials will be cut over three years, and a trend to cut tutorials in favour of class teaching has been mushrooming across the University, as the OxStu first confirmed in Michaelmas Term.
When questioned, tutors seem to have an arsenal of excuses at the ready. These range from asserting that classes foster teamwork in a way that is more relevant to today's workplace to the recent claims by the head of history that tutorials are marred by sub-standard work, hence fewer should be offered. The prospect of a lower workload for our undoubtedly inundated tutors is also probably a welcome corollary.
But how do we know whether to believe them? These excuses are not unpersuasuive. Methodologial changes to the traditional teaching system should not be ruled out on principle but need to be convincingly justified to those who will be affected.
The problem rests on trust. Surrepticious methods used to push these changes through - not unlike the closed door policies of Congregation over the recent top-up fees vote - can only confirm students in their opposition to academic changes and entrench the criticism that the decision is based predominantly on resources. The blessings and curses of stint reform are clearly subject-specific. While philosophy students have bemoaned the demise of traditional teaching methods; more than one economist has praised the move to classes. Success is also probably correlated to the traits of individuals - both tutors and students.
Bursars and tutors intriguing in backroom committees are denying themselves the valuable input of those who will determine the success or failure of this academic transformation - students. Instead of undermining our confidence in these authorities and, by implication, their proposed changes, the issues at stake should be brought out into the open.
Informing the lowly undergraduate of the constraints at work, financial or otherwise, can only generate fruitful feedback on possible solutions.
It makes a mockery of the JCC system to set its agenda in advance; to discuss changes which have already been negotiated by seemingly unshakeable higher authorities. The more students are kept in the dark, the more hard-line our representative institutions will become in reaction. This precedent for deceit which is being forged is thankless on all sides. If we continue to be denied knowledge of the complexities of stint reform, with top-up fees imminent, can we really be blamed for questioning why it seems we are being given less value for more money?
22nd May 2003