Students get marks just for turning up

I much prefer the approach - if you don't attend 80% of my teaching I won't mark your work. This is a purely personal view that has little support from colleagues when I mention it. But if a student doesn't attend, engage and contribute I am not marking the result of my teaching.

Is there any difference in practice between 'rewarding' students with 10% of their mark for good attendance, and 'penalising' students with poor attendance up to 10% of their mark? Would Frank Furedi be happier with the latter language? Would he be happier with anything?

"a commentator questions whether poor attendance correlates with poor performance" - a good question, and one that should be straightforward enough to answer. For example, for the last couple of years I have been plotting final marks vs attendance rates for a range of 1st to 3rd year engineering modules, and the results are pretty clear. No-one (apart from a handfull of bright sparks) does better than their attendance rate - ie 50% attendance = maximum 50% mark. There is certainly a correlation between attendance and performance ... but of course that is no guarantee of a causal link. A much better question would be 'does enforced attendance improve performance?' ... I don't know, but I'm sure someone out there has the answer.

Very good point. Nevertheless, it all depends on how the rewards and penalties are calculated. If the 10% is calculated as a fraction of the actual exam mark, there is a difference between penalties and rewards. A mark of 60 would be unchanged or downgraded to 54 under the penalty regime, but would be unchanged or upgraded to 66 under the reward regime. As to the main topic in the article, if a student is going to spend the class texting, chatting and distracting other students it is better for everybody if they do not come. Perhaps we should award points for absence in such cases?

The students tend to respond to the face-to-face teaching model imposed by universities with a blended-learning -- ‘be there, when the activity justifies your presence; work at a distance otherwise’ -- learning model. For the intended learning outcomes, most of the time the students are right and the teaching model is wrong. The principle of reward, which penalizes those who aren’t physically present, is a bureaucracy trying to force the wrong *teaching* model on students who are suggesting the right *learning* model. They will prove to be right in the long run!

So you think we expect them to be 'there' all the time? Duh... Contact time is when they show the results of preparation. Or it's supposed to be. Oftentimes the only 'blend' in their learning is the antihangover coffee.

Giving marks for attendance happens at Loughborough too. It helps to up the students' marks and improve our statistics. I recently had one student tell me that she'd be coming only for the first hour of my 2-hour seminar because a senior colleague, who gives marks for turning up, had rearranged his class to clash with mine. The students know what they're doing! Those colleagues who say 'hey, we don't simply give marks for attendance, we assess their participation in class' are deluded. Are we expected to believe they really keep track? If they do, doesn't that interfere with the cut and thrust of debate? ('that's a good point, I'll give you an extra mark') and don't you think their favourites get the highest marks? How on earth does this meet the standards of transparency and anonymity we're told matter on course-work and exams?

This grading method needs to be a decision made by each professor individually for each course. A freshman English Lit course will have different needs than a senior course in the subject would. With the pressures and distractions of university this grading method may benefit some students by focusing them and demonstrating what is expected of them at the university level. For older students who are serious in their studies - or should be - then it is not appropriate. However to sweepingly generalize that this grading method benefits no one is a knee jerk reaction that shows a lack of understanding of the varying needs of the student population.

As a mature student heading into 3rd year at a university where the majority of my class don't show up for lectures or seminars, I see the attendance issue as coming from lecturers themselves. If during the 1st year students are introduced to university standards and expectations, encouraged and shown the benfits to engagement as it relates to learning, they will attend, without noisy snacks and mobiles away. Attaching grades for mere presence isn't the solution. Having teachers passionate about their subject matter and sharing their knowledge will do far more than ticking boxes can towards creating a learning environment.

At Queen Mary, UL, students are simply de-registered from a module if they miss more than 2 seminars in that module. Simple.

It's to be expected in universities which cater to students of a 'non-traditional' background. And it's implicit when judging their qualifications on the job market. Certain less established universities award marks simply for making an effort. There is some overlap between making an effort and excelling in a chosen subject but at most of the best universities making an effort is simply a prerequisite - otherwise why would they be studying what they are if they can't be bothered to turn up?

At a `leading university`, students rarely turn up to lectures -- but ther staff contracts insist on a heavy lecturing load per lecturer or professor. What happens is that students might turn up to the hear the good lecturers, so they have keep lecturing all year. The bad ones get no audience so they can (in effect) go home early every week.

I like the Queen Mary University model referred to by Jack. There should be limits on how many absences students are permitted before they are dropped from a module and have to repeat it. This would encourage attendance, which contributes positively in its own right to a good learning environment -- hard to have much discussion in class if no one turns up. This having been said, a one size fits all approach doesn't make sense. There are certain subjects and module formats that require attendance more than others. Traditional large lectures might not, but smaller groups, seminars, and practical hands-on teaching does. For example, when Kingston University's music programme dropped its ensemble attendance requirement, the outcome was a disaster -- spotty attendance at best. Which, for example, makes it literally impossible to rehearse a piece written for 7 or 8 players, if only 1 or 2 people turn up to rehearse, thereby penalizing those who do bother to attend. This is a dumb policy that needed to be varied by the university management. Unfortunately, none of my colleagues were willing to take a stand to at least petition management for a variance in the policy. In short, my experience has consistently been that students who attend lectures, seminars, etc, tend to do much better than those who don't. If we want our students to do better and to have higher pass/good degree rates, then we cannot necessarily rely on them to have the good judgment to appreciate the importance of attendance, irrespective of whether they feel "entertained" by their lecturers.

I feel that a minimal attendance is necessary if the student is able to catch up, do his or her assignments and attend the various presentations required by the candidate. If the student is engaged in his or her lectures they will eventually see the benefits of turning up for every lecture. Secondly, if the students are interested in the topic, of a certain maturity perhaps have job experience in that topic they can be pretty helpful by turning up and contributing towards a constructive debate. However, taking attendane is a mundane task for the instructor as this means time wasted in taking down presence when the lecturer should be conveying vital learning information. Immigration authorities request of it just to monitor the movements of foreign students so that they should not take up employment should they not be allowed to do so or if allowed the employment taken up is questionable. So really, should attendance marks be given, perhaps if the student is weak. But if the student is average and above in his or her performance, I do not see it as a prerequisite but perhaps a bonus. It is his or her contribution towards class that is important, not sitting in class exhibiting signs of a fish whereby eyes are open but in reality mind is somewhere else.

Rewarding or penalizing attendance at classes is infantilizing. University students are adults and should be expected to manage their own time keeping and their own learning. They should have freedom to choose whether or not to attend, unless we are talking laboratory practicals, which mean ground that cannot be made up later. Whether or not you attend a class is a question of priorities. The cost of missing a class is a lost opportunity to receive subject-relevant information, discuss lecture content and test ideas. If a student attempts an assignment without all the necessary information, skills and practice it will show in the grade they are awarded. No additional penalties are necessary when students are assessed solely on the work they produce. If it's good enough, or excellent, then they will appear to have met the desired 'learning outcomes' without having attended all the timetabled classes, so why penalize them? More to the point, why reward the attendance of another student whose work just isn't up to scratch in spite of a perfect attendance record? Is it really the taking part that counts?

we don't hold with all that mollycoddling; a couple of scapegoats, that's the ticket!

In proper universities, the students come to study and most of the time are responsible for their activities including attendance. But in the case of the Mets, the Banks and the Moores, most students are recruited during clearing and come with insufficient entry qualifications and in case like London Met take their loan money and attend lectures sporadically for a time and then stop coming to lectures. These students know that the university would consider them as active students even if they drop out and it serves the university's purpose. If they don't drop out and merely stay away to enjoy what their loan money can bring, the university ofcourse progresses them to the next year. After all they need student numbers on paper and this will keep their lecturing staff jobs or non-jobs to be precise! The students get their loan money, the university gets its funds from the HEFCE. There is give and take here! We know where it led to in the case of this Met.

Years ago, when I was a graduate student and a Teaching Fellow at a large Ivy League university in Upstate New York, one of my friends, who was also leading 'discussion sections' for a large lecture course taught by a famous prof, reported that one of his students told him that he 'hated the course.' My friend asked the student what he didn't like about it. 'I never attend,' explained the student.

Years ago, when I was a graduate student and a Teaching Fellow at a large Ivy League university in Upstate New York, one of my friends, who was also leading 'discussion sections' for a large lecture course taught by a famous prof, reported that one of his students told him that he 'hated the course.' My friend asked the student what he didn't like about it. 'I never attend,' explained the student.

Look - we're all like tarts with all this bribing/blackmailing them to come, just to justify our own existence. Let's go the other way, play hard to get - start hiding your lectures so they have to go out of their way to find you; survival of the fittest, that's the key. If you're not prepared to embrace the tough love tactics, then give your lecture notes via twitter.

Have to say, as a mature student I've shared Jennifer's experience. For one of our units last year we were told that marks would be awarded for attendance. As it happened, this was ... erm... an "economy of the truth" and when final marks were posted, attendance had played no part. However, the promise of extra marks just for turning up did not improve the numbers of students in these lectures, as the lecturer was deathly tedious and just read verbatim from the (poorly written) presentation slides. Being something of a mark-slut I did turn up for all of them, but frankly I could have achieved as much by looking at the slides on the uni intranet and giving the related reading list a once-over. Good lecturers delivering interesting material in an engaging manner, will improve attendance. I've also experienced a small group of students being strong-armed into attending lectures. The resulting talking, texting, sniggering and throwing of objects was extremely distracting and is an issue that lecturers do not seem willing to address. If students don't want to be in lectures or seminars, for heavens sake let them stay away and stop annoying those of us who do.

Mature student: wow! how I would have liked to attend those fun lectures where you could throw stuff and that! Brilliant! However, as a lecturer now - I can't envisage (yet!) the circumstances where I would put up with that! the poacher-cum-gamekeeper, I guess. A world of pain and torment for the antagonists who want nothing but to destroy... but for the amusing ones - controlled jousts. The differences in experience from one establishment to another are illuminating, though

Mature student (and Don Quixote) don't seem to have noticed that there is a difference between seminars and lectures. The former are interactive and promote two-way discussion/debate; the latter are one-way, and students generally find it harder to become engaged because their role is passive in lectures. In my experience lectures serve to outline the key points from a subject area, and maybe provide examples or case studies. There is no reason why a student can't absorb this kind of information perfectly well from slides (if they are provided online) and textbooks. Indeed, this can be better as there are usually fewer distractions! On the other hand, I think seminars should always be attended because there is no effective substitute for the engaging learning experience they provide

@Don quixote. The master needs a holiday! If the student can follow the lectures from the slides and books, no need to attend the lectures every day. But then a good lecture for 1 hour gives the right start and learning experience. But then not all lecturers are good lecturers. Students these days a lot money as fee and it is a pity if they cannot make use of the learning experience even a bad lecture provides.

Steve - no, honestly, I didn't miss that distinction - however, many of my lectures feature interactivity at key stages - and yes, I'm aware of the dangers of creeping passivity (I've fallen asleep in a lecture before now! - not one of mine, obviously) So, to me, lectures, as with presentations at conferences, are a way of sharply focussing a debate, rather than being simply one-way transmission-and-reception exercises. Personally, in spite of blandishments from the retention unit, I simply don't want to have to mess around enforcing attendance - it's not a proper job. I'd prefer to do a decent job rendering a subject reasonably intelligible for those who do have some interest. If I cluttered the place up with people who don't have any interest, I'd end up having to render everything into Blue Peter -like presentations

I agree both with Mr Figueiredo and Prof Dumbledore. The answer lies somewhere inbetween their two explanations - students often have a very laissez faire attitude (I am a good example of this) but, in turn, Universities are not very good at accepting that their teaching models are often completely unattractive and entirely inappropriate for the subject matter. I cannot overstate the sense of dejection a student feels when, having had their imagination captivated by the esoteric resources many Universities enjoy, they turn up for their first lab session only to find that the extent of their exposure to cutting edge technology and scientific tools extends no further than the broken electrical brick-a-brack that is fished out of a utility cupboard. From this we are often supposed to describe complex scientific "principles" and demonstrate enthusiasm for 40 weeks of the year. Such an experience kills enthusiasm stone dead and, I assure you, it is very difficult to restore.

Two of my units this year had participation rather than attendance marks, which implies that attendance is important, and most lecturers are at pains to point out that those who do well generally have good attendance too, but how you contribute is just as important; those who have good attendance but turn up week after week with nothing to say simply baffle me. In my experience, students will attend lectures rather than seminars, which is disappointing since I find the latter a lot more rewarding. I have even been in seminars where only two people turned up: me and the lecturer, and we still talked for an hour! Personally, I think lectures a little pointless, and would suggest that students should read the content online, and then use classes to discuss it in more depth. Though, I am sure this would not be appropriate for some subjects.

Part of me is attracted to participation/attendance marks - but with the former there is too much room for subjectivity and, on balance, I've been swayed by the argument against attendance marks made by Furedi (and others here). I aim to contact students if they miss more than one class without an explanation - it's important not to let them drift and think no one cares whether they attend or not - particularly in the first year. By the third year I tend to feel it's up to them how they use their time and, although it's annoying when students miss classes, I can understand that they might for quite rational reasons prefer to spend more time on a crucial dissertation than attend a class about a book they know they won't be focusing on in their essay. It should be noted that non attendance - and non participation - are very annoying for good students. It's irritating for a well prepared student when others turn up without having even read the text (I teach English lit). I had a certain amount of 'drift' between seminars last year - the keen ones came to the 9 am session because they knew the other people in that group were really engaged and motivated. The more lackadaisacal ones attended (sometimes) a later session.

@ Prof Dumbledore. The reason for 'sufficient' qualification is so the non Moores, Banks and Mets can identify and skim off that year's cadre of easiest to teach students, leaving plenty of time for 'research'. At the cutting edge of teaching practice, in other words at the Moores, Banks and Mets, success is still (at least for now) measured in terms of the student not in terms of an academic's personal standing on the league table of often repeditive and frequently dreary publications. I'll take your cast-offs any time; I'd be driven to boredom shepherding silk purses. Oh and there is one over-riding reason for recording attendance: The public funding that accompanies UK students. Followed by pastoral care. Way down the list is the damaged ego of the lecturer.

@Graham Orr. You did not properly read what I posted. Your students do not attend lectures and do not materialise for pastoral care. They have long gone after pocketing the loan money. Those very few who are left are plain bored and not interested in anything remotely academic as they were recruited with a minimum primary school background.

@Prof Dumbledore - that's quite an extraordinary remark! I teach at a new university and I would agree that there is a slightly higher level of lack of interest and non attendance than in the Oxbridge/Russell Group universities where I've also taught - and a longer tail of weak students. However there are also plenty of able, enthusiastic, diligent and very respectably qualified students here too.

@sarah Again if you read my original posting I referred to specifically, the Mets, the Banks and the Moores, not all post-92s. I know all the three and was speaking from experience. If the students are respectably qualified-which we could assume as B B C at A2 level for example ( 280 UCAS points), they could go one of the pre-92s through UCAS route or at the worst during the short clearing week they hold. Why would they go to a post-92?

@Prof Dumbledore. Ok - but by using plurals 'the Mets, the Banks and the Moores' you implied, I felt, a larger group than these three. We get plenty of students with those sorts of grades - and quite a bit higher. Also some with lower - but many of these are mature students and/or do very well despite this. (Some do very badly too - but not that many!) The fact that our students are fairly well qualified may be explained by students wanting to stay local - but the dept has a good reputation and outperformed a good many pre 92s in the recent RAE. In my own subject (English) I'm not sure BBC *would* get you in to many pre 92s - though I may be wrong.

Prof Dumbledore, why not go further? Anyone who gets less than three B's at A level should be shot, or sent to Siberia for penal servitude...

@sarah RAE 2008 was social engineering conjured up by Brown's govt and ridiculous to think that people in "the Met, the Bank and the Moore" as well as post-92s claim that their research is world class, which is plain ridiculous. The world knows what the world class research is and where it is done-in pre-92s particularly in the Russell Group research-driven universities. I aimed the UCAS point low looking at applied science areas in clearing during last two years in the pre-92 universities which are at low 30+ band in the league table. Universities in top 10 and the Russell Group need As and UCAS points above 320. Why should a student as you say "quite a bit higher" say with AAA and AAB grades wants to go to post-92, humanities or otherwise? Post-92s were doing god job as polys and they should should back back to that status.

@Prof Dumbledore - but myself and two colleagues worked at Oxbridge before moving to our current posts - and we haven't suddenly started doing worse research! I felt the ring fencing of so much money for STEM subjects worked against the post 92s as far as the last RAE was concerned. "Why should a student as you say "quite a bit higher" say with AAA and AAB grades wants to go to post-92, humanities or otherwise?" See my previous post for some suggestions. Another suggestion is that some old universities seem to rely on lectures/post grad teaching at the expense of seminars/more experienced staff. Not that this is true of all institutions - and obviously many post grads do an excellent job.

@sarah I am not sure what kind of subjects your students took to get higher entry grades to come to your post-92-Media Studies, General Studies, Psychology etc.. or English Literature, English Language and Literature, History, Economics, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry etc.. Oh, Richard Armstrong. How is your post-92 and your attempt to go to top university where there are "good students"?

"Another suggestion is that some old universities seem to rely on lectures/post grad teaching at the expense of seminars/more experienced staff. Not that this is true of all institutions - and obviously many post grads do an excellent job" That is cliche coming from some one who claims to have taught in Oxbridge. In my university in the Top 10, all experienced staff including professors lecture. A student graduating from Russell Group knows what it means unlike from a post-92. Richard Armstrong: Careful what you say. The last time, your posting was removed by the editor.

@hello folks. Given the fact they are overwhelmingly from the state sector, I am sure our students are statistically more likely to take 'softer' subjects than, say, Oxbridge candidates. @Prof D - again, I don't follow your logic. I lectured at Oxbridge - I lecture at a post 92 - I haven't had some kind of complete personality change between the two!

Hello folks, it is going great thanks; writing personal statements and research proposals at the moment! Out of curiosity can I ask what university you work at? Prof Dumbledore, with regards to RAE 2008, do you not feel that newer universities can produce good research in particular areas, where resources and infrastructure are less of an issue - such as in the humanities?

@Professor Dumbledore. Interesting. Not only do I teach the undeserving, I cannot comprehend your argument. Must be my lack of appropriate education. I read your condesending post carefully and realise it must be a wind-up. And I thought I'd play along - after all fun is fun. My students? You do not know my students. They are clear in their aims, turn up to class and if they are late they are required to apologise to their peers. Oh and they get jobs, good jobs, when they graduate unlike a significant number of those who have unwisely chosen to form part of a class of several dozens of anonymous faces in a lecture theatre to be droned at by someone able in the research arena and utterly unable to pass that intelligence on. You must know a goodly few of whom I write. They are the boring conference presentees your life may be focussed upon. Lucky you if so, no challenge there then. Yes of course the Moores, Banks and Mets deal in the unwashed, and a number of transfees from the 'proper' universities where they have discovered thay are merely 'unnamed soldier No 3', with the sole function to provide funds for 'proper' research. There is, of course, a large amount of important research undertaken at 'real' universities. There is also a huge amount of utter shite pandered as research at the same institutions with the singular aim of generating points on the academic league division tables. It does not take much prowess to figure out that bibliographic software sells itself on one major factor: The swift regeneration of a list of references into the appropriate format for this or that journal. One clever thought doth a wodge of papers make. (Wodge. Technical term used with gay abandon by the youthful, student-orientated, polymorphus colleges that are, apparently, the bane of your life) Your focus might be better aimed at sorting out the drivel that is the perinniel Postman Delivery problem (or whatever the bog-standard, paper-generating, 'safe' subject is in the academic arena of your choice) in papers so heavily caveated that any correspondance to reality is difficult to comprehend. Or maybe that's my lack of education shining through. Heavens, I hope so. It irritates the life out of me to pick up a journal and discard most of it as repetitive, derivitive, and one small step away from plagiaritive, waste of ink masquarading as formulea dressed in greek notation. As for the students of the Moores, the Banks and, my own personal favourite, the Mets, they come in all sorts of flavours: Some have no formal academic qualification whatsoever and they generally benefit the most. The important bit is 'They benefit the most'. Not me. Not my academic profile. Not your academic profile. Not anyone else's academic profile. Just their own, personal, journey in learning. As for warning other posters of their commentary I find that a little pretentious although it might be a consequence of the reflected glory of having your name used in a novel about wizard students. No. Wait. That is all you deal with, no? On the other hand you may be a figment of the editor's imagination...........

oops. "'...thay are merely....'. Tscha! displaying my lack of education yet again. And I missed an opportunity to snipe - age kicks in yet again. Russell group. Yappy dog. Thinks itself the biggest in the pack, always seeking attention, prone to jumping up and down and getting itself stuck in rabbit holes. Oh and as brave as a very, very brave thing willing to transend boundaries others might be frightened of. Not good with children.

.......and perennial.........damn THES, actually making us spell for ourselves........

@Graham Orr - yes I too wondered whether Prof Dumbledore is in fact someone from the THES come here to liven things up! I won't comment on what you say about research because we're probably from completely different disciplines. But I can't agree with you about this 'unnamed soldier 3' business - I've taught at three old and three new universities and old university lecturers seem just as interested in their students as post 92 lecturers. From my own experience it's the other way round if anything - ie I think I discussed students more with colleagues at old unis - but I think that's partly to do with the different patterns of study within the two sectors. Nearly everyone in the top universities is studying full time, if they're at Oxbridge they're living in college quite probably so more visible, whereas at new unis they may be p/t, commute from quite a way away so tend to come in for teaching and not socialise quite so much? They're also much more likely to be doing paid work which takes them away from the university environment. The old unis I've taught at have been in smaller, cosier locations than the new universities which have been in larger cities.

@Graham Orr You seemed to have got your undergarment in a twist. Next time try just 5 sentences. @sarah and Orr. I work in a top pre-92 Russell Group university. I have taken a survey recently. In my 2nd year degree course, I have 5 students, male and female, and their parents work as academics in post-92 universities and in year 3, there are 4 male offsprings of post-92 academics! Perhaps their parents are blogging here saying how wonderful their post-92s are!! When you go to your university tomorrow, try asking your colleagues when you meet them. If they have sons/daughters, ask which university they go to now or where did they complete their degrees. You will get interesting replies! While you are doing this try your local Labour MP who prattles often about so called "widening access" and If he/she has sons/daughters of university-going age, they will be at one of the top pre-92 universities. If he/she is a community hero like Jeremy Corbyn MP who while saying how wonderful the Met in his constituency is happy and relaxed with his sons at Oxbridge! We have heard this with secondary NUT teachers, who while sneering at the grammar and independent schools in their yearly rant at Harrowgate, quietly send their own children to them!

@Prof D - I take your point and given that most academics are so securely middle class it would be bucking the trend if their children did not tend to go to older unis, generally. IIf I had a seriously bright and bookish child who wanted to study a traditional subject then I'd probably be thinking more in terms of an older uni - but it wouldn't bother me if they went to a post 92 as long as the dept was good. I have more than once idly wondered whether one of our degree courses (not English though) might not suit my own son (who is bright but maverick and dyslexic) rather well. I am aware of a student in my dept whose father is a senior prof in the same discipline at an old uni. I can't think of a single close colleague whose children are in the student age range but one of my senior colleagues has a nephew starting in our dept. But what newer unis are so good at is taking the student with 2 Es but with potential (if an academic's child got 2 Es we can probably assume it's their own fault!) and turn them into a really solid 2.1 student - this fairly extreme jump isn't all that common but it simply isn't going to happen at all at a university which only takes students with 3 As.

@sarah I have heard it before. Those who do not have kids like Roy Hattersley the former Deputy Leader of Labour Party who said if only he had a child he would send it local comprehensive. I had two colleagues, rabid socialists who were arguing the same way as Hatterrsely. Now they have kids and they go to independent schools! I am aware of THES policy and hence am hesitant to name a couple of post-92 warriors who post here and who say that the RAE2008 showed the world class research in their subject areas. But their offsprings are in our university studying the courses in the same subject area! "Taking a student with 2Es and turning that student into a 2.1 to compete with 2.1s"? Not even Paul Daniels can conjure this up. You got to say all this as it appears you are struck in this post-92.

Should read ".. stuck..."

The effect of writing more than 5 lines!

@Prof Dumbledore True, my undergarments frequently get in a twist. Universities in the Russell Group lie somewhere between 1 and 49 in the recent Guardian league table out of the 117 assessed. On a brighter note this group manages to grab 7 of the top 10 places for lack of student satisfaction with feedback and 7 of the top 10 for career prospects. Suggests to me that your teaching activities may have a limited impact upon your students who are probably bright enough to succeed without much intervention. I refer you to my first post and, with that, you have your five sentences. @sarah. I am as guilty of hyperbole as Dumbledore. Pre or post 1992, the argument is toast really. More good research will come from universities that draw their faculty and students from the clever rather than the merely bright. QED. I suspect the ire some at pre 1992 universties feel is generated by some mistaken belief that we 'oiks' are syphoning off 'their' funds. As if that money would be available were the new universities to suddently disappear. And I truly love the dreadful argument about social engineering made by Dumbledore - as if the selection of students based on a score which is enhanced by parental example, expectation and ability to select the right school for their offsprings(as far as I am aware the plural does not need an 's' - but Dumbledore teaches at a Russell Group top 10 so what do I know) is not social engineering. Sigh. Russells. Not good with children.

@sarah. Just read your recent post and agree whole-heartedly.

@Orr. Student satisfaction which has thrown up even London Met, Leeds Met, Bolton, Bournemouth etc.. as most desirable universities in the past! Argue as you no doubt will, the employers know where to choose their employees from. The problem with post-92 academics is that they do not have bright students and do not know that in Russell Group bright students do independent study, do not like to be spoon-fed and unlike post-92s our classes are like seminars with plenty of discussion. Our students come prepared after reading the material. Our tutorial classes have small number of students and we have plenty of discussion there too. Actually post-92 were good as polys with decades of vocational training ethos. The primary reasons for these polys to go for universiity titles ( University in South Corner of Yorkshire, University in the Middle of the Dales etc..) were- the overseas students outside the EU would not come in numbers if these were still called polys and the directors of polys wanted to cast aside the strict LEA oversight ( which would have trapped the two Mets' excesses) and wanted loose governing body framework and ofcourse as VCs their salaries would double too! In this process they jettisoned the decades worth of vocational training ethos.

Prof D - I don't feel you are fully engaging with what I say - given that I am actually not *totally* disagreeing with youl I don't see what this precise conversation has to do with schools - mine go to independent schools - I'm not a zealot, just someone keen to defend a sector which has a lot going for it and which you seem bizarrely keen to attack. I don't know if I'm stuck in my current post because I haven't actually applied anywhere else since I left my permanent Oxbridge job four years ago for my current one (the current one is better paid - I am not completely resistant to the charms of Oxbridge!) At my last job I also passionately defended the new university sector when it (just occasionally) came under attack from colleagues - ie I'm not just saying all this because I'm chippy. @Graham - yes, totally agree with your social engineering point - have had the same thought myself when people grumble when admissions tutors try to take into account students' backgrounds.

@Hello folks. Thank you for helping make my argument. But I only selected two aspects of student satisfaction, not all of them. The article addresses student attendance and it has been correctly pointed out that the unwashed universities lose more students than the Russell Group et al. Prof D has argued that these students ought never to have been enrolled in the first place, and this argument has teeth if one assumes that Russell Group = intellect. [One wee, tiny sideline: If the intellectual prowess of the UK A-level pupil was suddenly to plumment to EE would the Russel Group refuse to enrol?] The Russell Group enrols the students with the best academic track record. One fifth of those students come from socio-economic backgrounds that seem to mitigate against participation in higher education. The bottom 20 universities in terms of dropout rates have more than half of their intake from similar backgrounds. Would you accept I wonder the hypothesis that low social-economic status increases the possibility that a student will not attend and subsequently dropout?

@Orr spurious argument mixed with a good dose of social engineering. I have seen so many like you, the post-92 academics who grasp at anything to provide the reason for the existence of these third rate universities. Excellence is a dirty word in Britain. Excellence is found in pre-92s. I have taught post-92 students. Most of them not only have very poor background in hard subjects ( I teach these) and but have low motivation. They are the fodder for the post-92s. No wonder these so called universities are making the wrong kind of news. Social engineering is not the answer. One cannot expect these students to study 3 years and come out with the same academic standard as the bright ones of pre-92 universities. In a few years time a good number of these post-92s will merge and downsize.

I do not support social engineering whether generated as a political scheme or maintained by blatently biased selection criteria. I do not claim the current system is blatently biased and oh how awful. It is blatently biased and that's a fact of life. However for us in the third rate universities a 2:2 from an effective standing start is a success to be enjoyed, for you this degree classification must be a failure - how could it be otherwise given you start with the brightest and best? And of course we can expect '...these students to study 3 years and come out with the same academic standard as the bright ones of the pre-92 universities'. It seems you have confused academic standards and intellect.

I am amazed at this discussion which is supposed to be about incentives for attending seminars as been diverted by what on other message board would call a 'troll'' (It is a term of art' for eg the protagonist in Coleridge's 'Rime of the Ancient Mariner'). I hope colleagues can manage their seminars better than this message board. In the same issue of THES as Frank Furedi's article appeared, there was another by Tim Berkhead:, Superficiality Breeds Contempt', which proposes incentivising academics to give lecturers.This seems to be the same issue.... 'getting people to do what they are have agreed to do.. May be a study of Thaler& Sunstien's albeit popular book 'Nudge' would help. The book's biography provides references for those who prefer an academic approach and have time to spend a day with Athens. Incidentally fifty years ago at Oxford I never attended a lecture (I was a littlde deaf) but I always went to tutorials to get the reading list. However I only learnt how to do history properly when I was PT teaching for the OU and benefited from Arthur Marwick's wisdom.

I agree with Peter. Yet again a message board has degenerated into the old universities calling the new ones oiks. Well if that is an example of the sort of thinking that goes on in the Russell group we are in a mess. I work in a new university. I know the students there are probably not as bright as those in the established sector but so what? They have not had the chances, the encouragement, the support or the advice that their more privileged peers have enjoyed. Their achievement is therefore the greater, even if it may not equal that of their counterparts. And to those who object to social engineering I would say this. What the hell do they think the class system is? Or the old boy network. That is the kind of engineering they should turn their guns on. But then as is obvious from some of these comments, they have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are.

I hold my hand up. I started something of the drift from the subject at hand, student attendance, and am a (very) little ashamed of my punt at such an easy target as the Russell Group. Their exponents on these fora are so easy to hit - not sport I know, mere diversion and it is interesting that at least one of their group (Glasgow) has been reported as needing to incentivise student attendance. Blows all other argument regarding the 'Blessed' vs the 'Unwashed' out of the water. So unless further caveats are introduced that effectively segregate the Russell Group into 'proper' Russell Group universities and 'Oiky' Russell Group universities and, safe in the knowledge I have used my permitted five sentences, I exit: Stage Right.

I work in a Russel Group Uni and I I say with passion that this argument about pre- and post '92 unis is divisive, one-dimensional and downright dull. It is almost always started by 1 or 2 individuals who use different names. You can tell from the syntax and sentence construction. Perhaps we should all agree to ignore this antagonistic attempt to stir things up.

Yes - I came on to discuss the issue and allowed myself to be baited. Back to the issue - I have been thinking further and wouldn't mind, on reflection, having attendance marks for first years - a) because it would get them into good habits and ease the transition from school and b) because their marks don't count towards their degree - although they do affect their progress into the second year. I think many students would actually appreciate being 'nudged' in this way - once they get to the second year the prospect of their marks going towards their degree is usually a good enough incentive for all but the worst delinquents - but if they didn't attend well in year one they will have fallen behind.

So you can find from syntax and sentence construction . They are stupid you think like yourself who supports foreign students over home students.

What you say applies to post-92 students mainly who mostly do not attend lectures. In my university which is a post-92 the 1st year degree classes are only 30% full and I know the drop out rates of 1st year in most post-92s are high. This is because all post-92s ge their students through clearing and other means and they come with all kinds of background. The management simply wants the numbers. I worked in post-92s both top of the league list and bottom of the league list and they are all the same. Merely giving marks for appearance is addressing the symptom and not the disease. The reality is that only a small percentage, not 50% can benefit from university education. The others should be given opportunity to do non-university education and apprenticeship training. We do not have enough of facilities for the latter as every institution became a university. Another solution would be to reduce the number of intake and increase the number of years they study to get a degree in these new universities. This can be done by taking all these students to Foundation year rather than as direct entrants to 1st year degree. Let us face this fact without circumlocution. They are put into this situation by the govt who encourages them to go to universities. The schools are realistic and they know which student can benefit from university education.

This article mixes up the "Hokkaido University of Education" and "Hokkaido University". These are different institutions at different locations. This sad incident occured at the Hokkaido University of Education (Asahikawa) and not at Hokkaido University (Sapporo). It seems that the teachers indeed used the manpower of their students in English seminars to produce materials for their own Ainu research. If so, it was a stupid (or at least imprudent) thing to do but hopefully the trial brings out the full truth. The sad thing is that whoever has done worse, the professor or the university, the real losers are the Ainu language and people.

Much of the jousting here on the subject of the new/pre-92 universities divide is wrongly focused - i.e. on the - alleged - difference in "ability". I do not question the ability of many of the students at my university; I do question the intellectual tools they have been given at the scondary education level and their commitment. The majority of them simply do no preparation at all for seminars and tutorials even though they are supplied with perfectly clear reading lists and instructions. They also have major shortcomings in at times elementary literacy, numeracy and general knowledge. I do not feel that I should have to explain to a University student what the word "ardent" means, or have to tell him/her that the word "genial" does not refer to someone who is a genius. Nor do I expect students who have reached this level of academia to be so ignorant as to place Malawi in Asia, as happened to me a few years ago.

Coming back for a moment to the discussion on awarding marks for attendance, can I just say that, until a few years ago, at my university, we were able to incorporate an attendance requirement of 5-10% into the assessment structure of modules. What this meant in practice was that if students didn't pass this component of the assessment, they would then fail the whole module. Knowing this, students did attend. This improved the overall pass rate, the cohesion of groups, and also had postive implications in terms of the ability of the staff to recognise and address issues of plagiarism. Jack's solution (above) atr QMUL, to automatically de-register a student after 2 missed workshop/seminars would, in my view, be equally effective. Students do need to understand the importance of attendance; and without these kinds of clear boundaries, this understanding sometimes comes just too late (ie after they've failed the module because they haven't a clue - having not been there - of how to successfully complete the assessment). Its also an early-warning tool enabling tutors to support students who are running into difficulties. Its not - as the report might suggest - a question of 'bribing' students, but more one of fostering a clear understanding, in assessment terms, of the importance of attendance, and of the consequences of their actions. Its not enough to simply pay for the course: in order to pass it, they have to turn up, engage, do the work, and complete the assessments. A bit like gym membership, which doesn't guarantee fitness, but provides the facilities for those prepared to work at it. Sadly, management withdrew the option to include attendance requirements in course outlines; and the lack of control, at academic level, over attendance and de-registration has - in our institution at least - contributed to some very well-publicised difficulties.

When I was an undergraduate there was a rule that we had to attend 80% of practical classes to qualify to sit the exam. To be honest I could not imagine my attendance getting that low and I do not think that anybody ever checked but it was a threat that could be used if necessary. I do think that students need boundaries and something simple like the Queen Mary solution seems ideal.

@Walter Cairns There is sense in people making a distinction between Post-92 and pre-92 in terms of student's attendance. In your MMU, which is a Met, students are recruited in numbers to seat bums on the lecture theatre seats and your management does not care what their entry qualifications are. They want the home students in industrial numbers so that they can milk the dosh from HEFCE. The three Mets, MMU, Leeds Met and London Met practiced this for long and London Met went a step further and claimed dosh for non-existing students. It is in trouble now of its own making. The distinction between the two-the functioning Pre-92 and the dysfunctioning post-92 is this. In pre-92 students occasionally miss classes, but then pull back and keep up with the lectures as they know from peers that they have to make the best effort possible to graduate with credit. The QMUL policy will work. In post-92 like the Mets, the students do not attend lectures ( the home ones disappear after taking loan money, the overseas ones disappear to work in fast food chains). The QMUL policy will not work as staff and management are interested in numbers on the paper ( like London Met) and not student's physical attendance in lectures. If they were, London Met would not be in the pickle that it is now. Loan money installments should depend on satisfactory report of attendance and for the overseas students non-attendance should have the penalty of deportation-difficult to do and can be done. Simply bribing them will marks for attendance will not do as these students pocket these marks and still stay away selectively.

To 'to Walter Cairns': the issue is not the imaginary distinction between the nature of the student body attending pre- and post-92 institutions (isn't it extraordinary how this prejudice seems to permeate almost every thread on the THE discussion board?) Nor is it the imaginary (and somewhat xenophobic) distinction between the aspirations of overseas students and home students. The focus of the discussion is how best- given our academic experience of the issue - to support student attendance. My own view is that students do not necessarily immediately understand the necessity of attendance; and until they become fully able to take responsibility for their own learning, this needs - in some way - to be inbuilt into the structure of the courses on offer. Now, whether this is through a small component of the course being assessed on attendance (which makes students aware that poor attendance could result in failure of the module as a whole), or whether students who miss more than two semianr/workshops are automatically de-registered, the important thing to consider is, does this - as a strategy - work? In my experience, at least, both have met with a measure of success. Maybe, as 'To Walter Cairns' suggests, attendance should be built in to the conditions of funding, with annual reporting. Whichever strategy is used, the intrinsic nature of attendance to successful completion of a course must be at the centre of it. In real terms, in regard attendance components, the percentage possibly gained by a student for being present (5-10%) is likely to have little impact on the overall outcome of a module; but if a student doesn't attend, and fails that component, then they fail the whole thing; and that is the point of incorporating it into the assessment structure. The idea of marks as 'bribes' that students will 'pocket' is just silly. Attendance is a small part of success (alongside intelligence, the ability to learn, commitment, hard work etc), but its lack is a major cause of failure.

Where will this marks for "appearance" stop? The next will be: 25 marks for simply attending semester exams for the first 30 mins and just filling up the front cover of the answer books, 15 marks for producing the first sheet of the coursework with names and the title of the coursework and little else etc.. etc.. In Britain, we have 4 tiers of universities-tier 1: Russell Group where as "To Walter Cairns" puts it there is peer pressure in the form of group members and the sense to achieve something good out of the course, tier2: The rest of the better pre-92s where there are occasional attendance problems but which are ironed out without much difficulty, tier3: The lower end of pre-92s e.g. the likes of Salford U and the so called better post-92s where the problem crops up frequently and the need QMUL type of solution tier4: The 3 Mets, UEL, The Bank , The Moore, these unacceptable faces of HE institutions where the students are recruited outside the UCAS route ( no questions asked about their background) to show the paper number to HEFCE to get the funds. For these students the "appearance marks" make no difference, and as the lecture theatre seats and exam desks remain unoccupied anyway. The management and academic staff are satisfied with the paper numbers as they get the funds any way. Hence for them, this discussion is a waste of time.

If the fact that more studets are working their way through is part of the problem, then bribing them with marks isn't going to compete with money they need to live on. Up the fees, then give 'em discounts...

The comments about post '92 institutions/pre-'92 institutions and home/away students are a distraction. It is the same old people under multiple names. I work at a Russel group Uni and in my discipline I can acknowledge and respect the contributions from colleagues in post-92 institutions. There are more readers out there that agree with me than there are people who disagree. Let us just ignore the bait and not get drawn into this. The real problem here is the issue of student attendance and if we all share good practice....then just maybe we can collaboratively emerge with some net improvement.

But then you want more overseas students!

I agree with "where will this stop?"

I think that the comments from "Where will this stop" is nothing more than vacuous hyperbole.It is Ok for a jokey rant but it is not really serious.

and because i am just an unimportant cog in the endless whirr of academic activity i only consider myself......lowercase as in "a"cademic. Obviously I have to look up to "A"cademic. I know my place! (but I don't plagiarise others names ;-))

@academic There is clearly a difference in the way the name is chosen. Someone is ranting not me! As for plagiarism address them to your overseas students you so admire.

So I thought that you described yourself as an administrator previously

If students can get the grade they want on the course assessments without attending class, then good luck to them. It would suggest either an intelligent, highly motivated student, or very poor assessment design, but either way why penalize/infantilize the student by making attendance compulsory.

To me, (summative) assessment should measure achievement. Attendance is not achievement, in the same way that effort is not really achievement. Both attendance and effort are desirable, but they are not the goal per se. The problem is that 'time on task' is cited time & time again as being the key determinant of learning - but giving marks to physical presence is not the way to solve this.

If the knowledge, skills and abilities developed through doing a course are (as some of the posters above seem to suggest) of so little value, then why not just buy the essays off the internet and not bother doing the work at all (and if you haven't turned up for any of the seminars, no one will know the difference)? In fact, if its just a bit of paper you're after, why not just buy the degree?

Until THE introduces paragraphs to the discussion boards I'll try to indicate paragraphs by inserting a line of asterisks. ********** A high proportion of the discussion on this website seems to stem from disputes about the status of post-1992 universities. The question here is whether students' final results ought to reflect attendance, and yet so much of the discussion seems to be focused on the differences between pre- and post-1992 institutions. ********** Discussion is made all the more difficult because so many of the contributions seem to be made by a few people who post under a variety of pseudonyms, or even under no name at all, but rather a 'To X' heading. Furthermore, these people do seem to like to debate merely by trashing the opinions of anybody with whom they disagree and even resorting to personal attacks. Somebody, for example, has repeatedly used the expression, 'the Mets, the Banks, and the Moores' to encompass all that is rotten in British higher education. There are four Mets - Leeds, London, Manchester, and Swansea - but only one Bank (and one Moores, though to be fair that is usually given in its singular, and even in a kind of invented singular form, 'the Moore'). Rarely do these contributors seem to conduct discussion with respect or reason. They just reiterate the same unsubstantiated point, never paying attention to anybody else's well-argued rejoinder, and make personal insults until the rest of us decide that they aren't worth debating with. ********** As for my opinion on the subject in hand, I think that results ought to be based solely on the work examined. Getting marks for turning up devalues the achievement of those who produce the best work and gives an artificial boost to those who are diligent but not very high achievers. Fortunately in all the universities I know there are sensible procedures in place to guarantee attendance. At Oxford, attendance at lectures is of course optional, and rightly so, as many of the lectures bear little relation to the course content. I went to many lectures at Oxford, but what I learned from them rarely made its way into my exam scripts. Attendance at the tutorial, on the other hand, is absolutely mandatory, and a student who misses more than one tutorial will face the consequences. I have a friend who was rusticated for a year for missing tutorials. One must point out, however, that very few Oxford students want to miss their tutorials, and if they absolutely have to the tutor will almost invariably re-schedule rather than miss one. At my 1994 Group institution undergraduates had to attend 50 percent of lectures in order to be eligible to submit coursework and attend the examination. At my Russell Group institution I think the proportion of lectures to be attended is 80 percent. This seems like a far better arrangement: those who regularly fail to attend effectively fail the course.

Isn't this merely a matter of personal pride? Some lecturers here seem to be fixated on punishing those who don't attend their lectures or seminars because it is seen as an insult to them personally. In truth, depending on what course/university you are lecturing for, I would suggest that with sufficient teaching or social skills it should be possible to attract the more interested students. The plain truth is that students avoid some classes simply because the teachers are awful. Indeed, it has been my impression that some academics are purely concerned with research and view teaching as a nuisance. While I'm not in a place to judge that attitude those who have it can hardly blame their students for being uninterested. I would think it would be most sensible to grade someone on the ability they have shown and the progress they have made. If a student is intelligent enough to skip seminars or lectures but still do well why exactly should they be penalised (I'm guessing the answer is: 'because it makes me look bad')? Conversely, why should a student who attends classes but shows little ability or potential be graded favourably simply for attending? The whole point of exams is that they provide an objective standard, and that the personal views of teachers on their students, or the students personality, dosen't come into play. Why can't exams be relied upon to give an indication of what a student has learned? Attending is not the same as 'learning'.

I qm q lecturer, not a child)minder, and see no reason why I should have to monitor attendance. Students are deemed to be adults, and if they don't turn up they should face the consequences in terms of failure. End of story. We are the laughing stock of European universities in persistign with this infantile ritual.