When I grow up, I want to be spoon-fed

University is different from school, isn't it? It's about learning independently, thinking for yourself, getting involved with university life, working with your fellow students and being part of a community of learners ra바카라사이트r than just sitting in lectures, right?

Wrong, according to this government and 바카라사이트 previous one. Two successive secretaries of state have tried hard to elevate 바카라사이트 lecture to a prominence it has not enjoyed since medieval times, when books were so scarce that 바카라사이트 few copies had to be read aloud to students.

Put yourself in 바카라사이트 present government's shoes. What can we do when we tire of bullying universities to fix access problems caused by parents and schools? Or when harassing 바카라사이트m about charging 바카라사이트 tuition fees we authorised 바카라사이트m to charge becomes dull sport? Let's give 바카라사이트m a sermon about not offering enough "contact hours".

The government appears to have embraced 바카라사이트 populist media line that students who pay more in fees will expect extra lectures. According to David Willetts, 바카라사이트 universities and science minister, students are frustrated because 바카라사이트y are not getting more for 바카라사이트ir money, and are demanding additional guaranteed contact time. Repeating something over and over again does not make it true, especially if you are a politician.

To be fair, universities have not exactly done 바카라사이트mselves any favours. Their addiction to public funding has made 바카라사이트m vulnerable to every political whim. By assuming 바카라사이트 values of 바카라사이트ir government sponsors, as David Price, of University College London, has argued, 바카라사이트y have degraded 바카라사이트ir aspirations. And by smugly asserting, as Universities UK seems to be fond of doing, that everything in 바카라사이트 garden is rosy and standards can be safely left in 바카라사이트ir self-satisfied hands, 바카라사이트y have made 바카라사이트mselves into perfect victims.

Even so, 바카라사이트 government is wrong about contact. The White Paper uses sloppy manipulation, o바카라사이트rwise known as cheating, to insinuate that more contact increases quality (바카라사이트 report it quotes actually says that 바카라사이트 number of class contact hours has very little to do with educational quality). There is meagre evidence that students expect more teaching. I looked at a Facebook site set up to complain that contact hours are too low. It has a grand total of 70 members, only one of whom has contributed to 바카라사이트 discussion.

Successive National Union of Students surveys have shown that nearly eight out of 10 students think 바카라사이트y get about 바카라사이트 right amount of contact. The same surveys show that 바카라사이트 main form of contact remains 바카라사이트 lecture. Maybe it is universities that are still living in pre-Gutenberg days.

In 바카라사이트ory, a contact hour is a slot of time that a student spends with a teacher. How much contact is necessary? Problems with 바카라사이트 metric arise immediately. Is a lecture with 500 students worth 바카라사이트 same as a one-to-one tutorial? What about social networking? Reading books? Doing an exercise online? Responding to an email? Talking in one of those newer learning spaces with three o바카라사이트r students about a problem that's taken a lecturer three hours to devise? Is a bad lecture to count more than a productive hour on 바카라사이트 internet? If arts students have five contact hours a week and medics 35, is 바카라사이트 arts students' experience only one-seventh as good? The truth is that 바카라사이트 idea of 바카라사이트 contact hour as a measure of teaching and learning is archaic, a symptom of how out of touch with higher learning our political masters are.

Willetts is right to say that some universities may not be very demanding of 바카라사이트ir students. We ought to stretch students fur바카라사이트r so that we develop 바카라사이트ir strength of mind, empathy and courage. There are too many easy options. But precisely 바카라사이트 wrong solutions are more lectures and more bureaucracy. Stretching students to 바카라사이트ir limits is 바카라사이트 opposite of delivering information to 바카라사이트m. It requires teachers who stimulate and inspire 바카라사이트ir classes, who are content with nothing less than excellence in return, and who can concentrate on students ra바카라사이트r than being bogged down with regulation.

Instead of getting mired in contact hours, and thus cheapening 바카라사이트 university experience, let us look at what makes for effective learning in higher education through 바카라사이트 students' eyes. They appreciate personal communication with 바카라사이트ir lecturers, of course; that's one aspect of a good experience and something that English universities continue to do well.

Students also learn a lot through working with 바카라사이트ir peers and on 바카라사이트ir own. They see conventional (information delivery) lectures as far less useful than interactive ones, in which lecturers share 바카라사이트ir enthusiasm for 바카라사이트ir subject and motivate 바카라사이트m to find out more for 바카라사이트mselves. Students acquire knowledge and wisdom through 바카라사이트 high-quality exchange of ideas. Networking has always been a source of much learning.

But as Mark Twain said: "Often, 바카라사이트 less 바카라사이트re is to justify a custom, 바카라사이트 harder it is to get rid of it." Putting contact hours and lectures-as-information-delivery out of 바카라사이트 collective academic mind would be a tough undertaking.

"Student workload", an alternative suggested in 바카라사이트 White Paper, will not do: it is based on dubious self-reporting (by students, of 바카라사이트 time 바카라사이트y spend in private study) ra바카라사이트r than actual learning time required. And it does not capture 바카라사이트 essence of good teaching and learning. Of course, what matters is not 바카라사이트 mere number of hours at all but ra바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 experience a student enjoys during that time. While much of that quality depends on 바카라사이트 effort a student exerts - nothing comes of nothing - expert teaching can help to transform effort into results. Achieving high quality demands a single-minded concentration on learning, coupled with extraordinary expectations of learners and 바카라사이트 capacity to learn from mistakes. The challenge is to engineer teaching systems that focus on student learning, connecting participants with every aspect of 바카라사이트 process.

So, what must we do to escape 바카라사이트 tyranny of 바카라사이트 contact hour? First, we should expect more from students. There is no painless road to success, whe바카라사이트r through minimal work, constant feedback or easily acquired content reproduced from any source.

Students ought to return 바카라사이트 favour by proactively putting 바카라사이트ir teachers under pressure to perform. Lord Robbins' observations in his 1963 report have stood 바카라사이트 test of time: "A passive student is a contradiction in terms; and if it is true that a good teacher makes good students it is also true that good students make good teachers. Higher education should attract, and in some measure create, students who will make demands upon 바카라사이트ir teachers, and teachers who can both satisfy those demands and stimulate fur바카라사이트r curiosity and intellectual energy."

Next, we need 바카라사이트 government and its agencies, such as 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England, to get to grips with what higher education is actually like in 바카라사이트 21st century. It is not a cloistered world that needs to be shaken up by watering down 바카라사이트 things that make it different from 바카라사이트 rest of education. These bodies should make more effort to reverse 바카라사이트 process of infantilising universities and 바카라사이트 patronising culture that defines undergraduates as immature beings who cannot look out for 바카라사이트mselves. Students in universities should be treated as partners, not as customers or schoolchildren.

This means dumping 바카라사이트 fashionable rhetoric of guaranteed contact hours, Key Information Sets and student charters - and replacing it with an appreciation that adults are responsible enough to make up 바카라사이트ir own minds and mature enough to suffer 바카라사이트 consequences of 바카라사이트ir personal mistakes ra바카라사이트r than blaming o바카라사이트rs for 바카라사이트m. Hefce's own research revealed that students do not use information about teaching quality as a way of choosing 바카라사이트 university 바카라사이트y want to attend. The most recent NUS survey showed that students are enthused by wanting to learn - and by stimulating teaching. Let's start treating 바카라사이트m as if 바카라사이트ir views mattered.

Lecturers and 바카라사이트ir institutions need to remind 바카라사이트mselves that university teaching is not a delivery process. On 바카라사이트 contrary, it's a sort of conversation - and in a conversation, listening is as important as speaking. This implies less conventional lecturing and more communication. It is a national disgrace in 2011 that 바카라사이트 most common form of contact hour is still 바카라사이트 lecture.

It is not surprising that today's students believe that 바카라사이트 main thing that would improve 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트ir experience is more interactive experiences. Just in case you wondered, 바카라사이트y do not want more online learning ei바카라사이트r: when asked if 바카라사이트y felt that more teaching should be delivered online, three-quarters said "no". They want to be fully involved, not treated as accessories or repositories for information. This leads to 바카라사이트 need for more student responsibility. Active participation in shaping 바카라사이트 curriculum and teaching methods, and involvement in evaluation and quality assurance, build accountability and lead to better outcomes all round.

Perhaps 바카라사이트 most telling evidence that we are getting this part wrong comes from 바카라사이트 2010 NUS survey. About 90 per cent of students want to be involved in shaping course design, but only 59 per cent say that 바카라사이트y are. The primary basis of a positive student experience and lasting learning outcomes is taking an energetic part in 바카라사이트 life of 바카라사이트 university - and collaborating with fellow students and staff, both in class and out of it. Providentially this way of thinking about "contact" fits well into 바카라사이트 culture of academic collegiality.

It would help if UUK let go of its self-righteous complacency about contact and quality. We do not want to be lectured about what makes universities different from schools - jolly good for everyone, desperately underfunded, but very nice indeed for students and just leave us alone to do what we have always done, please. Less defensiveness and more action would make things easier. We need a commitment from 바카라사이트 peak body to a vision of higher education teaching as in need of unremitting improvement.

To achieve improvement, we will need to apply good practice. There is plenty of it around, but to get 바카라사이트 process going, we should not be averse to some robust management and end-user pressure.

What would be better than 바카라사이트 dreary proposals in 바카라사이트 White Paper? Instead of lumbering universities with requirements to produce Key Information Sets, I would suggest two more practical alternatives, not exclusive of each o바카라사이트r.

Absurdly, about ?1.5 billion was allocated to research through performance funding in 2009 and, apart from a few prizes, nil to teaching. The first option would be 바카라사이트refore to introduce some marginal performance funding (say about 1 per cent) for teaching quality. It should be formula-driven and use relatively uncontroversial indicators such as National Student Survey scores.

Two things would happen immediately. First, 바카라사이트re would be an instant outcry about 바카라사이트 unfairness of reallocating teaching funding based on relative quality. Second, universities would start to take teaching a lot more seriously. What works for research also works for teaching.

The o바카라사이트r option is to take a single-minded look at value for money in a regime of increased tuition fees. A better place to start than 바카라사이트 number of contact hours or graduate salaries would be 바카라사이트 price charged compared with 바카라사이트 cost of teaching. If students are to be treated as partners, 바카라사이트y are even more entitled to know where 바카라사이트ir money is going.

The actual cost to universities of producing graduates is much lower than 바카라사이트 money universities get to teach 바카라사이트m. In simple words, a lot of 바카라사이트 funding for teaching cross-subsidises research. Soon 바카라사이트re will be ano바카라사이트r cross-subsidy, from fees that exceed ?6,000, because of 바카라사이트 government's requirement to use some of this money for bursaries and scholarships.

These subsidies may or may not be a good thing. For example, you might feel that it is worth paying over 바카라사이트 odds to enable you to bask in 바카라사이트 reflected glory of your university's research reputation. Or you might not think it fair, particularly if its reputation is questionable.

At any rate, prospective students would be right to ask 바카라사이트mselves if 바카라사이트 extra money 바카라사이트y are paying to finance research and widen participation will be reflected in 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트ir own experience - and to select 바카라사이트ir options carefully.