Can someone please give me an honest opinon? (1 Viewer)

[kitkatkittyau]

I keep hearing all this bad stuff about UWS, however, no one can tell me there reasons for saying its shit. So can someone please give me their honest opinon on the uni?

 

[purplemonkey]

Hey. UWS isn't shit. People say it is, but its just coz UWS is a new uni and hasn't really had time to establish a good name for itself like UNSW or USYD. I reckon its a top uni to go to...especially in terms of admin; getting to pick our own classes and stuff, so its really flexible. All the lects/tutors I've had have been really good...always willing to help you out. And coz its not one of the 'prestigious' unis, all the students are a lot nicer, and we dont have chauvinist pricks walking around as much as the snotty unis do. Yay UWS!!

 

[bassqueen16]

i think alot of people dislike uws for the above reasons and mainly cos they think that its a westy uni like that all the bogans go there... not my personal opinion but yeah i think most people just think cos its a newer uni its not as prestigious to go to as say usyd or unsw people are odd

 

[D.]

UWS is a great uni. Admittedly I left for UNSW but that's because it's way closer to where I live, and had the course I wanted. But, as for why people say it's not good...
1. Employment rates and starting salaries are lower for graduates. I honestly don't know if this is true, but that's what they say.
2. Prestige. This has to do with the above, less prestige less money.
3. Anything with 'Western Sydney' in the title.
4. Low UAI cut-offs.
5. Doesn't seem to be a lot of people's first choice, with many transfering out.
6. Uni admin seems a bit lost and incompetent. Though, I found them to be way better than what I encountered at Sydney Uni.
7. People on this board love to get up the noses of certain UWSer's.

 

[butterflybird]

Haha I wonder how long it will take before this thread becomes a shouting match.. I hold out hope of civility.

Uni life isn't so much about "the uni" it just depends on what you specifically want to do. For example... my double degree. One subject of it I really enjoy; it's well-taught, efficiently run, the people are friendly with no problems at all really. The other half makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a pitchfork. It is poorly taught and I don't enjoy it at all. If I was ONLY doing one course I would say that HEY uws is a GREAT uni! And if I was ONLY doing the other I would say RUN! RUN AWAY AND NEVER RETURN! *coughcommunicationscough* But that's just based on what I had wanted to get out of it and my own interests and so on.

It just depends on what you want to get out of it.

 

[hYperTrOphY]

Prioritise what is important to you: the specific course; it's structure; electives; location; atmosphere; reputation etc. Go to the open days, speak with the students and lecturers and base your decision on the factors you deem important. If reputation is of prime important, then perhaps UWS is not the university for you.

Although it is almost impossible for anyone to say with any degree of certainty, I do not believe that attending UWS will prevent you from achieving great things in the future. If I did feel that way, I most definitely would not have chosen to study here. It may be true that, when seeking employment, if you and another candidate (of whom attended a more prestigious uni) were of equal quality in all other respects, the employer would employ the applicant from the prestigious uni over you. However, that scenario relies on the conception that employers are prejudiced for/against condidates by mere fact of the uni they attended - something which appears to be changing. Quite a few UWS graduates have, for example, attained positions in top tier law firms, which demonstrates both the changing attitudes of employers and the fact that UWS produces quality graduates.

It may also be true that employment rates and starting salaries are lower for UWS graduates relative to competing unis. However, this does not prove that the teaching quality is inferior or your chances of successful employment are diminished by the fact you studied at UWS. This statistic may simply be the consequence of the fact that UWS has a lower UAI cut-off, which means it is quite plausible to suggest that the cohort at UWS is probably less gifted and/or hard-working than that of other unis. Thus the lower starting salaries and employment opportunities is, I would suggest, more to do with the student himself or herself, than any fault of the uni (except, perhaps, the marketing team). In other words, it all depends upon you: it will be your grades, your experience, your achievements that will have the greatest influence on how successful you are in the future; not simply the uni you attended.

Although I have never attended any other unis, I have spoken to quite a few friends who are at various others, including USyd and UNSW. One of the major differences seems to be lecturers. At UWS, every lecturer/tutor I have had has been genuinely interested in all students' development and understanding, are willing to provide assistance, have consultations, speak over the phone or via email, answer questions on webCT etc, at other unis they seem to be far less willing to provid such assistance. It may very well be the case that my friend's experiences are not representative of most lecturers, but that has been a consistent comment made. Further, the students are apparently friendlier, less competitive, and more tolerant at UWS - of course, I can't be certain of this.

UWS may not be the university for you. A better course may be offered somewhere else. If, however, UWS does satisfy your needs better than any other uni, do not choose to study somewhere else simply because of a misconception that you will be forever doomed and unemployed. Such is not the case. Good luck.

 

[Captain Obvious 1]

It's because it has Western Sydney in the title.

 

[sam04u]

Although I have never attended any other unis, I have spoken to quite a few friends who are at various others, including USyd and UNSW. One of the major differences seems to be lecturers. At UWS, every lecturer/tutor I have had has been genuinely interested in all students' development and understanding, are willing to provide assistance, have consultations, speak over the phone or via email, answer questions on webCT etc, at other unis they seem to be far less willing to provid such assistance. It may very well be the case that my friend's experiences are not representative of most lecturers, but that has been a consistent comment made. Further, the students are apparently friendlier, less competitive, and more tolerant at UWS - of course, I can't be certain of this.

I think it's irrelevant to the quality of a university based on the ammount of time the lecturers spend with the students. If a lecturer can teach the subject based on the curriculum and also inspire independant though then it's succesful. Qualifications aren't the only reason why we have universities, otherwise any institute could replace them. And, the quality of graduates is as you said dependant on the students and not the lecturers and that's why basing a university based on it's alumni isn't the best way to judge a university. I think it's best to judge them based on research.

 

[hYperTrOphY]

I think it's irrelevant to the quality of a university based on the ammount of time the lecturers spend with the students. If a lecturer can teach the subject based on the curriculum and also inspire independant though then it's succesful. Qualifications aren't the only reason why we have universities, otherwise any institute could replace them. And, the quality of graduates is as you said dependant on the students and not the lecturers and that's why basing a university based on it's alumni isn't the best way to judge a university. I think it's best to judge them based on research.

Whether it is relevant is a matter for the individual. You should base you decision as to what uni you will attend on a number of factors, one of which might very well be the student-teacher relationship. I know of one person who left UNSW to come to UWS because of the type of lecturers and students at UNSW, and I have spoken to quite a few people who have said one of things they hate is the fact that lecturers don't seem to care about them.

Personally, this wouldn't be a major issue for me, and was not one of the reasons I selected UWS, but that isn't to say it is not important for many other students.

 

[LaraB]

Basing the quality of teaching staff on their research is the most moronic thing i have ever heard in this whole stupid why uws is/isn't good debate.

Being a good/bad researcher does not equate to teaching ability.

THE worst teacher i have ever had at UWS is bragged about by all staff as being an awesome lecturer but he was a shockingt teacher because he couldn't explain info in a way we could understand, he was boring, he was very un-interactive etc...

But i've had awesome teachers who don't do research stuff much at all because they aren't concerned with gaining permanent status...


look... it all depends on what you want to do....

I'm not going to tell you what's good and bad about the uni coz the usually 2 year old will come in and do the well u have low UAI cut offs, you're out west, you don't have huge ugly old buildings wah wah wah...

You need to investigate it yourself and consider probably these things:
*Location - particularly possibilty of multi campuses
*Professional recognition - as far as some unis are recognised by professional bodies and some aren't
*Ability for you to work whilst at uni given location, timetabling etc
*If you wanna be going to somewhere you'll know people or not
*If they offer the specific majors you want
*If they have flexible timetable - i.e day or night
*If you prefer more theory or practical learning as some unis are different - you can't always tell, some things you can though by reading the unit descriptions
*If the course has units you want - some courses have the same name but are very different
*If you like big or small classes
*If you like face to face or online learning - eg a lot have online lectures etc

That's just some of the things..

but yeah - look into it with all unis and then make up your mind.

DON"T consider prestige because if these things aren't there it doesn't mean shit.

Maybe if all things are equal, then consider things like prestige and social clubs etc because i mean.. ultimately you're at uni to learn and get the skills to do the job you wanna do so those things should be your last considertion.

 

[sam04u]

Basing the quality of teaching staff on their research is the most moronic thing i have ever heard in this whole stupid why uws is/isn't good debate.

Being a good/bad researcher does not equate to teaching ability.

THE worst teacher i have ever had at UWS is bragged about by all staff as being an awesome lecturer but he was a shockingt teacher because he couldn't explain info in a way we could understand, he was boring, he was very un-interactive etc...

But i've had awesome teachers who don't do research stuff much at all because they aren't concerned with gaining permanent status...


look... it all depends on what you want to do....

I'm not going to tell you what's good and bad about the uni coz the usually 2 year old will come in and do the well u have low UAI cut offs, you're out west, you don't have huge ugly old buildings wah wah wah...

You need to investigate it yourself and consider probably these things:
*Location - particularly possibilty of multi campuses
*Professional recognition - as far as some unis are recognised by professional bodies and some aren't
*Ability for you to work whilst at uni given location, timetabling etc
*If you wanna be going to somewhere you'll know people or not
*If they offer the specific majors you want
*If they have flexible timetable - i.e day or night
*If you prefer more theory or practical learning as some unis are different - you can't always tell, some things you can though by reading the unit descriptions
*If the course has units you want - some courses have the same name but are very different
*If you like big or small classes
*If you like face to face or online learning - eg a lot have online lectures etc

That's just some of the things..

but yeah - look into it with all unis and then make up your mind.

DON"T consider prestige because if these things aren't there it doesn't mean shit.

Maybe if all things are equal, then consider things like prestige and social clubs etc because i mean.. ultimately you're at uni to learn and get the skills to do the job you wanna do so those things should be your last considertion.

Alright, I've got a question for you to answer your statement (which is stupid and wrong). Why do students look for tutors who performed in the top 10% of the state? Why do they have graduate students teaching you guys after lectures in tutorials? (generally the top od the class). I'll answer that question for you. Because they know what they're talking about and actually have an evolving and individual understanding of their field. As I said, many times the qualification or understanding can't just be transfered from Lecturer to Student. Some courses require independant thought, other require knowledge of the subject. Both can be best presented by the best and brightest in the field, if a student wants to be at the top of that field.

eg;(A proffesor of law, regardless of how interactive his lectures are. Wont be able to teach you how to sow a guys leg on.)

 

[LaraB]

Alright, I've got a question for you to answer your statement (which is stupid and wrong). Why do students look for tutors who performed in the top 10% of the state? Why do they have graduate students teaching you guys after lectures in tutorials? (generally the top od the class). I'll answer that question for you. Because they know what they're talking about and actually have an evolving and individual understanding of their field. As I said, many times the qualification or understanding can't just be transfered from Lecturer to Student. Some courses require independant thought, other require knowledge of the subject. Both can be best presented by the best and brightest in the field, if a student wants to be at the top of that field.

eg;(A proffesor of law, regardless of how interactive his lectures are. Wont be able to teach you how to sow a guys leg on.)

what the crap are you on about?

Most people consider research, with regards to a discussion concerning currently teaching academic staff, as the work they conduct in addition to their teaching at teh present time - i.e. their status as undergrad students means shit all.

This does NOT equate to being a good teacher. Remaining up to date with current developments in the field or, as in teh case of lawyers since you raised law - continuing to practice - is enough to afford a t eacher the same knowledge that research does. Not all lecturers conduct "research" in the strict sense of the word - that doesn't mean they are not at the top of their field in terms of their ability to teach the material.

But regardless - the point i was making was that you cannot judge teaching based on reesarch as a good researcher won't necessarily make a good teacher - that is 100% correct. Nothing you say can refute that because it is 100% true because you cannot prove that all good researchers are good teachers and vice versa, plain and simple.

I don't konw of any student be it myself, my siblings, friends, co-workers who ever desired teachers more or less based on their academic performance and research at the undergrad level, that being the level we are talking about at the moment. No one cares because it means shit all at this point because you don't know enough to form that decision, you have no right to ask academics that information unless they voluntarily provide it and it doesn't mean the will be a GOOD TEACHER!

And yeh - of course - the point i was making was that a professional in one industry can teach you to do the skills required by another industry and your need to post your example was valid...

Might help if you actually criticised the point i was making rather than rambling on about some other linked but different fact.

 

[klh]

some other threads to consider, if not repetitous:

http://community.boredofstudies.org...-uws-wasnt-good.html?highlight=UWS+reputation
http://community.boredofstudies.org...e-going-uws-not.html?highlight=UWS+reputation
http://community.boredofstudies.org...oyers-think-uws.html?highlight=UWS+reputation
http://community.boredofstudies.org...ated-reputation.html?highlight=UWS+reputation
http://community.boredofstudies.org.../uws-reputation.html?highlight=UWS+reputation
http://community.boredofstudies.org...unis-reputation.html?highlight=UWS+reputation
http://community.boredofstudies.org.../no-offence-but.html?highlight=UWS+reputation

have a read through if you have some spare time. I didnt feel like putting them all up, just a few threads.

 

[melsc]

Prioritise what is important to you: the specific course; it's structure; electives; location; atmosphere; reputation etc. Go to the open days, speak with the students and lecturers and base your decision on the factors you deem important. If reputation is of prime important, then perhaps UWS is not the university for you.

Although it is almost impossible for anyone to say with any degree of certainty, I do not believe that attending UWS will prevent you from achieving great things in the future. If I did feel that way, I most definitely would not have chosen to study here. It may be true that, when seeking employment, if you and another candidate (of whom attended a more prestigious uni) were of equal quality in all other respects, the employer would employ the applicant from the prestigious uni over you. However, that scenario relies on the conception that employers are prejudiced for/against condidates by mere fact of the uni they attended - something which appears to be changing. Quite a few UWS graduates have, for example, attained positions in top tier law firms, which demonstrates both the changing attitudes of employers and the fact that UWS produces quality graduates.

It may also be true that employment rates and starting salaries are lower for UWS graduates relative to competing unis. However, this does not prove that the teaching quality is inferior or your chances of successful employment are diminished by the fact you studied at UWS. This statistic may simply be the consequence of the fact that UWS has a lower UAI cut-off, which means it is quite plausible to suggest that the cohort at UWS is probably less gifted and/or hard-working than that of other unis. Thus the lower starting salaries and employment opportunities is, I would suggest, more to do with the student himself or herself, than any fault of the uni (except, perhaps, the marketing team). In other words, it all depends upon you: it will be your grades, your experience, your achievements that will have the greatest influence on how successful you are in the future; not simply the uni you attended.


UWS may not be the university for you. A better course may be offered somewhere else. If, however, UWS does satisfy your needs better than any other uni, do not choose to study somewhere else simply because of a misconception that you will be forever doomed and unemployed. Such is not the case. Good luck.

:uhhuh: Well said. Just because the uni does not suit some does not mean its crap, I am attempting to transfer because the course I originally chose UWS for isn't what I want anymore and what i'd prefer is somewhere else but don't let that influence your decision. Do what you want not what everyone tells you, you have to live with the decision not them! Good Luck in making your decision.

 

[sam04u]

what the crap are you on about?

Most people consider research, with regards to a discussion concerning currently teaching academic staff, as the work they conduct in addition to their teaching at teh present time - i.e. their status as undergrad students means shit all.

Would you rather your tutor/teacher/lecture being at the bottom of their field/class or at the top fo their field/class?

Research, usually indicates a particular understanding of the field which would mean that the lecturer actually has an 'evolving' understanding and therefore can teach better and more useful information. eg;(IN high school the best teachers are the ones that go to those conventions and are upto date.)

If the lecturer doesn't ever do any research, and isn't upto date, and doesn't know of the field he's teaching (research) then regardless of his or her abilities in teaching they wont be as good.

continuing to practice - is enough to afford a t eacher the same knowledge that research does. Not all lecturers conduct "research" in the strict sense of the word - that doesn't mean they are not at the top of their field in terms of their ability to teach the material.

Valid point there. That is the equivalent for a law lecturer. Just as practicising or consulting in surgery would be the equivalent of a medical lecturer.

But regardless - the point i was making was that you cannot judge teaching based on reesarch as a good researcher won't necessarily make a good teacher - that is 100% correct. Nothing you say can refute that because it is 100% true because you cannot prove that all good researchers are good teachers and vice versa, plain and simple.

Nope, but I'm sure I can prove that all good researchers know their fields best and thus know what they're talking about. A good teacher who knows nothing is still better than a teacher who knows everything but is a lousy teacher. But, what he's saying is that a teacher who doesn't devote as much time is automatically a way to judge a teacher. It would be a 'better' method to judge a university by the research the lecturers/professors contribute too than either the alumni or the ammount of time devoted.

And yeh - of course - the point i was making was that a professional in one industry can teach you to do the skills required by another industry and your need to post your example was valid...

Might help if you actually criticised the point i was making rather than rambling on about some other linked but different fact.

I can teach you how to take an arrow out of your knee. But would you rather me teach you or a surgeon with a doctorate who has been researching surgery?

 

[Shell]

Basically, i went to uni to learn. UWS teaches me just fine. I don't ever want to go anywhere else, i never did. Its so close to home. I can work easily within half an hour of going to/finishing uni. Making friends was just the side, bonus part of getting my degree. I love the people i've met at uni.

Because ive never been to another uni, i can;t compare UWS to others. My opinion is just based on my first year of uni.

 

[Anonymou5]

LaraB as you usual in your incoherent and senseless ramblings, you have completely missed the point. Let me summarise sam04u's initial point to you; the best lecturers are active researchers who have an outstanding academic record.

So what was the point that you missed? The fact that it is a given that any good lecturer possesses very good communication skills. Any lecturer should possess the ability to 'teach' at a high standard. So what separates a crap lecturer and an excellent one? An excellent academic record and research involvement and achievements because these things demonstrate understanding and application. I don't know which lecturer's you've had but all of mine have been able to convey their ideas and thoughts very effectively. So your point about a researcher not necessarily being a good teacher is irrelevant since any decent lecturer can teach at a high standard.

Natstar obviously his comments do not apply to fields similar to the one you are in. For example in a dissimilar field to yours, such as physics or engineering the tutors are almost always grad students and such people were usually at the top of their graduating class. I think the initial (rhethorical) question proposed by sam04u was why that is the case? Well simply because in such fields those at the top of their class are the ones who have the deepest understanding of the material. So natstar I guess it's not like the field you're in where any bozo can understand the material and teach it well, so it is perfectly understandable as to why you "dont really get what [sam04u is] saying."

 

[RabbitRabbit]

Let me summarise sam04u's initial point to you; the best lecturers are active researchers who have an outstanding academic record.

I highly doubt Sam04 knows what he is saying. Unless someone has been to ALL the universities in every single lecture, then the 'standard' of quality teaching is not by any means measureable other than qualifications. That is what makes a lecturer a lecturer and not a researcher. For example, in accounting, we do not need a researcher but someone who knows the contents of the course. There is simply no point in going into anymore depth than what is required to be covered. Conversly I had a physics teacher in school, who was an excellent researcher and academic (he discovered a star in space), but his teaching abilities were so poor, the class average was no more than 60. So like any University, UWS would have a high standard lecturers based on qualifications and skills, but that is not to say that they needed to spend their first half of their life as an indepth researcher. To teach the material, lecturers need to have a sound knowledge and experience in teaching it, but anything else is irrelevant.

So why does UWS have such a low reputation compared to Usyd, Macq, UTS etc etc? The real issue is not the academic staff or the UWS facilities. The issue lies with shallow minded people quick to judge an entire institution they have yet to try.

 

[Anonymou5]

For example, in accounting, we do not need a researcher but someone who knows the contents of the course. There is simply no point in going into anymore depth than what is required to be covered.

Lecturers I've had do not go way beyond the syllabus, if at all and I highly doubt that lecturers from other unis do either, so I don't see what you're getting at.

As for research involvement of lecturers, I'm not sure about marketing courses but definitely for engineering and science based courses many (and I'm guessing pretty much all) lecturers undertake teaching and research concurrently. So it's not as if it is common for a lecturer to work solely as a researcher for years before venturing into teaching.

Also, your statement about 'everything else being irrelevant' is not applicable in many cases. A lecturer who has a broader knowledge of their discipline (this is attained mainly through research work), can often be better teachers. This is because they pass their broader knowledge onto their students who can then make further connections with other material they have learned. Perhaps this sort of higher level thinking (required in engineering and science courses) is not required nor beneficial in your course which is why you don't understand that sam04u's comment are (at least partially) correct.

Edit: BTW a class average is not a good indicator of a person's teaching ability. In uni I'm sure that you'll find that the average score for basically any given subject is around about or below the 60 mark which you mentioned.

The issue lies with shallow minded people quick to judge an entire institution they have yet to try.

Then there sure must be a hell of a lot of shallow minded people out there. Besides, you don't need to have been hit by a cricket ball to know that it'd hurt.

Edit: Fixed error in paragraph 2.

 

[RabbitRabbit]

Then there sure must be a hell of a lot of shallow minded people out there.

you're right.

Besides, you don't need to have been hit by a cricket ball to know that it'd hurt.

And you wouldn't have any idea how delightful strawberries dipped in chocolate tastes unless you've tried it.
Truth is, the majority of complaining about UWS, even done in this thread, is from people making ambiguous claims when they have not even set foot at UWS. Like a witch-hunt, just because the majority believes there's a witch doesn't necessarily make it true.
Now the thread starter can choose to take the opinion of an outsider, or UWS students who has actual understanding of the Uni. Unlike an outsider, I have no need to enforce my opinions because I can back up my facts from first hand experience at the Uni itself.