The History department has come under fire from students for both its new ‘Historical Archaeology in the Modern World’ course module, and a departmental policy that forces many History students to take modules against their will.
The module in question has been criticised by students for the poor level of preparation it gives them for a three-hour closed exam in January. It was also condemned for the way in which it has been taught, and for its lack of relevance to the course in general.
One student taking the module told Vision: “It was my fifth choice out of eight module options.” History students are asked to list their module preferences and are then allocated modules depending on demand.
Another student commented on the module, saying: “The lectures are OK, but the seminars are awful because it feels like no one quite understands the module. We felt that in the second year, now that our work counts to our degree, the University should allow us to do a module we actually want to do rather than one that was my sixth choice.”
“It’s a huge flaw in the history department. The fact that the University don’t just expand lecture sizes and the number of seminar groups to suit demand for a module is something that a lot of us aren’t happy about.”
Students have also been given only three procedural essay questions to help prepare for the January exam, fewer than for any other module. Some students have claimed that this emphasises the module is more suited to an Archaeology degree than one within the History department. James Symonds, the module leader, is based in the University’s Archaeology department. Earlier in the term some of the reading for the module was reportedly inaccessible.
Second-year course rep Alice Crawford said: “As course representative I took this issue to two staff-student committees and have had many consequent meetings, and I feel it is being caringly and effectively dealt with by the department, and especially the convenor of the Histories in Contexts courses, Nick Guyatt. Student feedback has definitely been taken into consideration and changes are being made.”
YUSU Academic Officer Graeme Osborn told Vision: “I am aware of issues with the module, but have not received any complaints myself. I will be working closely with Course Reps to resolve any problems as quickly as possible. I would urge any affected students to contact me as soon as possible.”
The last ‘Historical Archeology in the Modern World’ lecture is in Week 10, and the exam for the module takes place in Week 1 of the Spring term.
So people didn’t get their first choice module and are kicking up a fuss?
Non story
May have misread this as “History department raped by unhappy students” which is both confusing and seemingly a bit reactionary.
Just like YorkVision to print this kind of rubbish. I’m a history student and the dept has been fantastic – one of the most highly ranked in the country. YorkVision and their dodgy sources ought to put up and shut up.
I have heard many complaints from fellow-history students about this module, more than any other module, so clearly it is an issue that needs to be looked at. At the very least the number of people who didn’t get any of their top choice modules should be addressed because when you’re spending your second year looking for potential dissertation topics you should be able to do things that interest you, not something you know you have no interest in pursuing.
However, students were warned beforehand that this module was very much more similar to archaeology as a discipline than history (as if it being taught by the archaeology department wasn’t a big enough clue)and so they shouldn’t be surprised when it turned out like that.
The phrase is put up or shut up. Vision have put up. In this case they have put up some evidence that people are unhappy. If they had been unable to do this they would, I agree, have been better shutting up.
Not sure how they would put up and shut up.
Rapping? Easy ma bredrens. Let’s get dese here unhappy students in a onetime mc battle with the department big bois. Goodall vs. Goodricke wastemen. peeeace.