The latest issue of npTribune (downloadable PDF) highlights a disturbing trend of new courses being set up apparently without much consultation from students in current courses. I think this is big – because it also affects the Singapore media in the coming years, and is not just a petty political issue within Ngee Ann Polytechnic.
Note: The views expressed in my commentary following are my own and may not neccessarily be the opinion of the School of Film & Media Studies (which I study at), nor npTribune (the polytechnic’s newspaper which I will be editing from next semester).
CMC will affect current students negatively
The new Chinese Media & Communications course, set to open for 2009, affects not only Mass Communications students from the School of Film & Media Studies, but also Chinese Studies Media Track students from the School of Humanities.
I reproduce a letter from a Chinese Studies friend below. She wrote the letter after serious consideration and it reflects the views that even her friends have. Yet the School of Humanities’ Director, Mrs Choo-Yeo demanded requested to meet her two days after npTribune was released, and said that she should not have gone to npTribune straight.
‘Course’ For Concern
I am disappointed in School of Humanities’ (HMS) decision to set up the new Chinese Media & Communication (CMC) course.
CMC poses a threat to the current Chinese Studies (CHS) Media track students. CHS students are learning so much lesser than those in the new course. It is unfair to us CHS Media track students.
CMC should have been set up under the School of Film & Media Studies (FMS). HMS does not have the equipment. If FMS’ equipment is to be used, isn’t it ridiculous for us to borrow equipment from another school?
In addition, CMC is almost a replica of MCM, except that it is taught in Mandarin. Isn’t CMC redundant since Mass Communications students can do a Presentation in Chinese elective in their third year?
I think HMS should have included more media modules for future media track students of CHS, and not have wasted the effort to set up a new course.
Chen Huiting
Chinese Studies, Year 3
Growing Chinese-language media industry?
It is absolutely crazy to duplicate an entire course just because a rival school in Ngee Ann Polytechnic wishes to focus on the media using a Chinese-centric view, claiming a ‘growing Chinese-language media industry’.
Where is the evidence?
For all I know, the chinese papers in the Singapore Press Holdings are not hiring substiantially more than the previous years. The Singapore Press Holdings’ circulation figures also reflect extremely badly on the Chinese News Division – this is not even internal data – it’s on the net. The Chinese papers shrunk: Lianhe WanBao (-3.7%), Lianhe ZaoBao (-3.1%).
Comparatively, the English print media is doing not too badly. Multiple divisions such as STOMP, RazorTV, ST701, and SPHSearch have been pulling most of SPH’s online readers.
MediaCorp TV has only two Chinese channels – Channel 8 and Channel U. Yes, it is granted that these are the biggest free-to-air channels in Singapore. However, with the new media landscape, things do not look too bright for the Chinese channels. Everyone’s turning to Youtube and perhaps the Chinese equivalent, YouKu, for video.
Can you compete with China?
The School of Humanities might argue that these are directives from the Ministry of Education, and that we should not only produce media practitioners for the Singapore market, and instead expand into the Mainland Chinese/ Taiwan/ Hong Kong markets.
Yet these markets are oversaturated with Chinese medium reporters and other media workers. In the Zhejiang University City College alone, over 200 Chinese are being trained for their local media industry. Can Singapore-born Singaporeans really compete with the natives?
All the course might attract are foreign-born students from China. Perhaps this is the reason – international students pay a much higher fee than Singaporeans – at least a third as much, and all this money goes to the polytechnic. But is profit the purpose of education?
Competition within
It will not be easy for the Chinese Media & Communications course to beat the Mass Communications course set up way back in 1989. With almost two decades behind it, the School of Film & Media Studies is established, and is renowned in the local media scene for its high quality teaching – just ask reporters from the Singapore Press Holdings.
Even the alumnus are have landed great jobs and many scattered throughout the world. Top graduates are able to get scholarships from overseas universities, like in the United States.
One graduate whom I met last week can speak and write in more than six languages, including Hebrew. He is working in Palestine as a Red Cross delegate and is possibly the first Singaporean to work in a war-torn environment to co-ordinate medical and humanitarian services in Palestine.
You’ve probably heard of Jean Danker and Vernetta Lopez. Both were from the Mass Communications course. But not all alumni are working in the English media.
Casting their nets wider
Of late, Mass Communications students have started ‘infiltrating’ the local Chinese media. I for one, have worked with SPH’s bilingual web portal, Omy.sg, to produce video podcasts and my photographs have been published in the Chinese papers. Some seniors have an excellent command of the Chinese language, and they have interned in Chinese divisions of both Singapore Press Holdings and MediaCorp TV.
Current students in my cohort are going to the Channel 8 and Channel U post-production units, and others are going to Hong Kong to write for Business Traveller and the South China Morning Post. Yes, those positions aren’t for writing in Chinese, but that is where their strength is – strong command of English to cater for the English market in Chinese territories.
Bilingual?
Few people are truly bilingual. It is not unfair to generalise that Mass Communications students are great with English, and Chinese Studies students are great with Chinese. Yet how many can be truly bilingual? The Chinese Media & Communications course claims to help bridge the gap. But their incoming students aren’t likely to be able to write as well in English as in Chinese.
Even with Chinese Studies students, they are more used to writing and speaking in Chinese. When they translate their ideas into English, the prose and poise of the language is lost in translation.
Sharing of equipment
I heard that the Director of the School of Humanities said that FMS facilities should be fully utilised. Is this at the expense of Mass Communications, and Film, Sound & Video students? The equipment has been stretched to its fullest use, and the facilities are forever crowded.
Take the Digital Audio Workshops for example. These are crowded and rush time is hell because bookings are insufficient. With the Chinese Studies students, the situation during curriculum peak hours are horrendous. Students working on deadlines are frustrated by the lack of planning on the part of both schools.
The Director of the School of Humanities says that new facilities will be built on Level 3 of Blk 52: basic editing suites and studios for the new course. I think these will rival Singapore Polytechnic’s facilities, but most likely not be as fantastic as the School of Film & Media Studies multimillion dollar studios. Is this a wise move?
Not enough cameras
The video equipment is becoming older and more maintenance time is required. Even within the School, students have difficulty booking even cameras because they are all booked out. With the new course, is the sharing of equipment going to affect everyone else?
If cameras cannot be booked out, the students suffer because their interview timings are affected last-minute. Are interviewees going to trust our students anymore? Unless the situation is addressed and more cameras purchased, everyone will be disgruntled at the end of the first semester.
What I think should be done
To increase the number of Chinese-language media practitioners, the Polytechnic should study the possibility of offering more Chinese-language options into the Mass Communications course.
For example, Chinese radio ex-producer-presenters can teach a separate radio course. Students may choose to even take Chinese radio and English radio modules concurrently. Even first year modules in Marketing can offer at least one lecture on marketing in China.
True Bilingualism
It is important that Singapore maintains its strength in the English language because the English world is moving towards China, and not all will want, or be able to learn the language. If we are good in English, we will be able to help the Chinese export their culture and goods to the English-speaking world.
Instead of segregating both languages and creating a false ‘bilingual’ programme, a much stronger programme can be created in an existing course.
Mass Communications is communicating to the masses – is the Chinese Media & Communications course really communicating to the masses?
- Next in this series: The new Advertising & PR course by the School of Film & Media Studies.
34 responses so far ↓
Airell // August 19, 2008 at 3:06 am |
The 3rd year elective would actually suffice this whole desire for “chinese communications” . many of the media practitioners in Singapore grow up in a bilingual environment, picking up chinese or rather just using it wouldn’t be that tough of a job anyway.
don’t see the need of having a 3-year course just to rival another course of another school.
anon // August 19, 2008 at 3:25 am |
wat’s next? diploma in broadcasting & diploma in journalism after the diploma in advert and PR?
i pity those who specialize in marcomm and advert. it seems to me that they specialization have gone to waste overnight, facing a diploma specializing in advert and PR.
should then PR advert marketing modules be dropped from the mass comm diploma course then since no employer have would have reason to hire some guy, who wasted 1/2 of his/her time doing locvid or radio, for a PR job for instance? when the employer can hire a advertPR diploma graduate?
this move is certainly very lowering of the mass comm diploma.
Jeremy // August 19, 2008 at 5:10 am |
A few cogent points, you have there. These points will undoubtedly continue to resonate with most students so long as they are not refuted with compelling logic and evidence, if they can even be refuted at all.
An additional point about bilingualism: Bilingualism is defined as fluent proficiency in two languages. I personally find it startling that one may be considered bilingual with a mere O level pass (C6) in English, as implied by the course’s bilingualism objectives and entry requirements.
I am not being a snob. The same applies to me: I scrapped painfully through O level Chinese. I certainly do not pretend to be bilingual.
There is also one more thing that, I am sure, baffles many people. According to my dictionary, humanities is “learning or literature concerned with human culture, esp. literature, history, art, music, and philosophy.”
It says nothing about journalism, marketing, advertising, radio production and video editing. While these might be loosely classified under “arts”, they are not directly integral to culture formation and hence strictly speaking not “humanities”.
In addition, I do not look forward to answering any queries people might have about the “new Chinese Mass Comm” course. I foresee a very awkward situation when I attempt to explain to these clueless people that 1) it’s not mass comm 2) it’s not even in FMS.
Perhaps, it’s best that the media is left to the School of Film and Media Studies (isn’t this why we have a media school in NP anyway?).
With the colossal difficulties of running a media course (lack of facilities etc) out of the way, the School of Humanities can now concentrate on improving the wonderful work they have been doing with their Psychology and Early Childhood courses, do you not agree?
HRM // August 19, 2008 at 8:33 am |
hate the big words, Jeremy. lol. congent?
nice entry with lots of thought.
oh yeah, anyone else notices the similarity between the acronyms
MCM &
CMC
It’s like they are opposites of one another.
Gel // August 19, 2008 at 12:50 pm |
It’s quite cool, isn’t it. The world as we know it is ending in Dec 2012, so now the world is trying to s*rew themselves over.
HRM: Kinda cool you pointed out the acronyms similarities. CMC sounds suspiciously like something NYP or TP have already. Communication and Media or something.
I think it’s alright for the student to write in to npTribune. After all, it’s called “feedback”, and for all the “please talk to our kind staff if you want to produce negative talk” propoganda the Director may have been spreading, the efforts are certainly ill-appreciated. Oh, now our npTribune is getting one of those write-in forum pages too?
Hmm. The letter is cruelly direct, starting with “i am disappointed” (note the i in lower-case lettering).
Geez. The world. And XJ is angsty. =)
Satsueisha // August 19, 2008 at 1:17 pm |
@ Airell: I think third-year electives are not enough. Lessons about the growing Chinese market should be taught in lectures. Eg Media Law can explore copyright in China.
@anon: I think if the APR course is specialised enough, it would be alright if it is in a separate course. Yet I think students fresh out of O levels aren’t ready for such a specialised route to university.
@ Jeremy: agreed. Why shouldn’t CMC be under the Media Studies School?
@ HRM: CMC is the principal’s initials too. Conspiracy? Lol
@ Gel: PM Lee Hsien Loong encourages critical thinking – we’re doing that. And if we don’t defame anyone, and comment fairly I don’t see why discussion should be censored by the school.
Singwei // August 19, 2008 at 2:00 pm |
I hope the school will take serious considerations before starting up a course. Too many a time the instruction that a new course is needed is passed down from upper management and reaches staff who has to oblige to force a course out of thin air. A course has to be supported by qualified teachers, logistical personnel and equipments. Which I do not see or have heard an influx of these things into our school (and like you said, the frequency of the equipments breaking down is increasing). So I guess like the other new course that was set up in FMS, this might be another poorly planned move that not only might jeopardize the students enrolled into the course (because of colorful brochure with empty promises), it over stretches current staffs who are involved in this new course. Hopefully the reputation of this school will not implode on itself.
Jeremy // August 19, 2008 at 2:00 pm |
I think you guys are referring to TP’s media studies course – Communications and Media Management (CMM).
And cogent isn’t a big word, HRM. And it probably incoherent because I typed the damn thing at frigging FIVE AM.
But yea, the MCM/CMC acronym inversion is pretty cool. I can’t wait to see the advertising campaigns already (;
xq // August 19, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
Understandably from the school’s viewpoint, it is crucial to “keep up with times” now that there’s a sharp rise in the number of new diploma courses in other polytechnics & NP has to maintain a relative competitiveness. However, if this were to be done at the expense of existing students’ dissatisfaction and welfare, perhaps the school should take careful considerations into stuffs like budget for influx of technical and teaching staff, equipment, venues and technology. Based on the current situation, the recent introduction of a new FMS course seemingly stretched our existing resources to the optimum, it’s really frustrating sometimes to not be able to obtain sufficient booking times for work stations when each station has to be shared amongst so many other students from varying modules. This in turn affects our productivity and efficiency as we work on our assignments.
With the addition of yet more courses, and the stagnated amount of space & resources in FMS, not forgetting Chapman Uni which would occupy substantial amount of existing space in FMS, it’s really gonna be a difficult transitionary phase.
HRM // August 19, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
CONSPIRACY.
Jeremy // August 19, 2008 at 5:05 pm |
@ HRM: What melodrama.
Nigel // August 19, 2008 at 9:41 pm |
Hey,
Good read there XJ, I reckon that the points stated are very valid. However with all this discussion, are we going to propose the solution to NP? Because surely, everybody isn’t happy at all with this situation.
I’m waiting for the next discussion, that one will be heated because i’m involved (considering a future in PR)
P.S excuse my nonsensical words, masina has sapped my brain powah
Satsueisha // August 19, 2008 at 10:21 pm |
@ Nigel: Thanks. Actually I don’t think there’s much we can do except propose to FMS to boost our own modules, and perhaps see if our resources are stretched too far already without having a new course from another school?
Nigel // August 19, 2008 at 10:54 pm |
@Satsueisha: Aye, I’m up for helping to present or draft a letter if need be
Yanhong // August 19, 2008 at 11:00 pm |
I’ve always felt this way just that I never really thought much about it until I saw this.
Our modules should be improved and expanded. Not just one, many of them in fact. I’m currently halfway through Year 3 but sometimes when I look back, I don’t even remember what on earth happened during Marketing (Yr1Sem2).
And I’m pretty sure it’s not just me. Once or twice, I’ve voiced this out to fellow course mates in jest and we kind of end up agreeing and laughing about it.
And yeah, the inverted MCM thing is a little too coincidental! Looks bad.
Charmaine // August 19, 2008 at 11:03 pm |
wow this is detailed. I FULLY AGREE THAT WE NEED NEW DAWS.
my group was working on our final project, and our CLASS TIME was booked by felix for his year one class. the proj was due the next day and we were screaming ‘THIS IS MADNESS”. and yet we couldnt do anything cos all the daws were fully booked. poo.
rae // August 19, 2008 at 11:23 pm |
awesome.
hmmm. can we really compete with china if np sets up cmc? i think not! first of all, our standard of chinese is only sub-par. how do we even compete with mainland chinese who have been speaking chinese all their lives in the media world? is cmc willing to offer an intense chinese speaking/writing module to help increase their proficiency in the language? are singaporeans even capable to do marketing, advertising, pr, writcomm, speechcomm, gracomm, webd, news/featurewriting ALL in proper chinese (as in, mainland standard and not our own singaporean standard)?
and i am in absolute agreement that we do not have enough equipment to share around. it’s not just camera equipment but radio daws AND m-boxes as well. we don’t even have enough for ourselves, much less enough to share with chs and future cmc students.
i propose that fms should take chs media track students under their wings and say ‘nay’ to cmc. and from there, expand chs to include more media modules. or… as xj said, include more chinese-optioned modules in mcm. and hey! we can use the money to be invested in setting up the new cmc course (like teachers and the likes) in buying more equipment for us! hooray! win-win situation!
yeokaiwen // August 19, 2008 at 11:24 pm |
I personally do not like the idea of having another course ‘fully utilise’ FMS facilities. The radio side is already suffering, while the video side (FMS Cage) has seen over-booking and ill-treatment of its equipment because more and more students need to use them. (You can check that out with the Cage TSOs, who constantly face problems with student bookings.) With the introduction of this new course, resources will be overused till the entire student population of FMS suffer.
How many times has our equipment died on us?
How many times have we been unable to book out equipment?
I think we need a poll. Hahas.
What appears to be a good move with the right intentions might turn out to be of a bad outcome in the end. (The above is purely opinion-based.)
the.farand.effect // August 19, 2008 at 11:51 pm |
While I applaud the polytechnic’s efforts to provide a wider choice and more areas of specialisation for future students, I have to agree with most of the points brought up in this post.
In my honest opinion, I feel that it’s somehow a matter of quantity vs. quality.
If the schools involved can guarantee, or even firmly promise, that the graduating students are able to live up to the reputation that the current alumnus has set in the industry, then I have no gripes.
But if the schools cannot guarantee this, it would do huge injustice not just to current students, but even more so to the alumni.
As mentioned by the author, FMS graduates are highly regarded in the industry.
As a new alumni of FMS, I take pride in being able to ride on the waves set by the alumnus from FMS, and will strive to keep up the standards as an FMS graduate.
But if the graduates from the new courses do not reap the full benefits of what the FMS/HMS curriculum has to offer due to issues such as lack of equipment (kudos to the author for raising this point), they will severely affect the reputation of FMS graduates.
This is detrimental not only to alumnus already in the industry, but also future graduates, and ultimately, the standing of FMS/HMS in the eyes of the industry.
However, I am confident the schools involved made the decision to offer these new courses after much consideration.
What is needed now, in my opinion, is just an explanation to the true shareholders of the schools: faculty, students, and alumni.
Satsueisha // August 20, 2008 at 12:42 am |
@ Nigel: I will not be writing the APR article too soon. I’ll neeed speak to enough people before I start. =)
@ Yanhong: I agree, and I think some modules should be shifted to first year (like the very useful-yet-bothersome MEDLAW)
@ Charmaine: The DAW problem has been around since our year 1 days… Yet the problem hasn’t been solved. And I think that’s one of the reasons why CHS/MCM has some bad blood too.
@ Rae: Unfortunately CMC will proceed as planned, so the only way now is for FMS to respond to industry demands and tweak the syllabus, IMHO.
@ Kai Wen: Yep, and remember Camera 13? It’s so badly abused it should be retired.
@ Farand: Yes, that was one of my concerns. If the schools set up a new diploma, it’d better be good. Else 19 years of effort will go down the drain.
jorskwen // August 20, 2008 at 12:48 am |
and lets add this one. i think even masina is forced out of thin air.
with notes copied wholesale from wikipedia without reference, i see the irony of us students having to APA cite and the school being able to copy. in the name of education eh?
hmmm why arh why?
HRM // August 20, 2008 at 12:56 am |
22 comments. you’re on a roll. lol.
Satsueisha // August 20, 2008 at 1:02 am |
@ Jorge: I kinda liked MASINA! I mean, I didn’t like the assignments, but hey the theories were original. Which notes are you referring to? I think the additional reading were credited enough on Mel.
@ HRM: Hey the more people voice their opinions the better. At least the schools know that it’s not an isolated case of “cranky blogger syndrome”. People actually care – I’ve over 300 readers today alone (can tell from stats that corpcomm has visited). lol
huiting // August 20, 2008 at 1:12 am |
哇。好多看法。
首先，我想说的是：
中文系是个很棒的课系。
心里甚至觉得比大众传播系好太多了。
因为我真的很爱中文。
然后，人文学院对我来说是个温馨的“家”。
学校高层设立新课程，我并不反对。
不过，设立CMC，我是真的觉得很‘伤’。
没有太多意见可言，要说的已经向学校表明了了。
轮到其他中文系的同学来发言！
虽然，高层不一定会真的了解我们的想法
不过这样的一场‘交流’ 还蛮新鲜的。
*我竟然掀起了巨大风波*
*言论自由！你在哪？*
Brian // August 20, 2008 at 1:46 am |
There are calls for Polytechnics to open up more diploma choices for future students, and all in the name of ‘keeping current’ in the globalised economy where sometimes you may even need to be multi-disciplined. (Read: Diploma Plus)
I think opening up the CMC course just parallels what NP has done with MCM except that it applies only for the Chinese Media. Valid point that we can’t match those media students in China, but at least it allows our working space to expand rather than being stuck in lil’ ol’ SG.
From my point of view, it would be the same reason why NP has the Dip. in Ad and PR. So that students may have a choice in ’specialising’ early.
Looking at the modules for Chinese Studies, they do seem to do more than what CMC has. Maybe because it allows you access to MOE for a teaching career.
I’m not saying its redundant to have CMC because I’m pretty sure people would like to see many choices in ONE Poly rather than jumping to another Poly (not very business-savvy). But it could have waited maybe a year more for review on the resources that they need and develop the modules further, rather than hoping to produce a carbon copy of MCM. (in fact maybe they should have tried to integrate it as an FMS Dip. instead)
There’s nothing much we can do now but voice our opinions really. Since it has already been open for 2009. Just hope and see what happens over the next 3-5 years (hopefully nothing that is detrimental to the students). By then, improvements may have been made. And if a school such as NP approved these new diplomas, I’m sure they have plans ahead (for both good and bad)
For me, I’m looking at the words ‘choices and competition’. Yea, we’re giving you loads of new stuff, but which one do you think best suit you? And do you think you’ll be able to be on top by then to challenge those with similar diplomas (MCM, CMC) as you?
Suck thumb if you choose wrong looor.
Ya Ting // August 20, 2008 at 4:29 am |
I don’t understand why Ngee Ann keeps ‘duplicating’ courses, though this is not the first time, it’s certainly the most obviously flawed one. Why couldn’t they just change the name of Chinese Studies into Chinese MCM and make the necessary changes to the course?
Next, they will come up with a TRANSLATION course for bilinguals. In fact, it might even be a better idea than Chinese MCM. Friends who went to China for attachment are always asked to do translation anyway, it seems there’s demand for talent in this area. Moreover, like Xianjie said, natural bilinguals are hard to come by. but really, do you need a diploma to do translations?
ivanyeow // August 20, 2008 at 8:14 am |
I think it’s being unfair to say that we are equipment and we have to share with HMS just because the equipment in the CAGE.
Quoting a TSO who in turn, quoted “management”, he said, “just because there are cars in the carpark doesn’t mean you can drive right?”.
I think it’s ridiculous that OUR OWN FMS advertising students are “banned” from signing out lights for their shoots while we SHARE our facilities and equipment with a course that is producing students that are “cannibalizing” on our jobs.
Some people need to wake up their idea for our junior’s benefits, since fighting for equipment no longer falls under our “scope” anymore.
ivanyeow // August 20, 2008 at 8:25 am |
Another point that I wanna make on the cannibalizing of course. Being a MarComm and Advert “specialist”, when I saw the new Advert and PR course, I wanted to take it straight away because it’s so relevant.
Now that I look at it carefully, shouldn’t they allow us to “specialise” earlier instead of trying to hard to “diversify” the course.
Yes, it may be what employers want and is. no doubt, rather fun to go through, but we learn in marketing that days over “mass marketing” is over.
We have to cater the course the suit our students, people who want to “specialize” early should be given the chance to, people who want to take the “general” stream should be allowed to do so as well.
I know this make take up more resources and manpower but will definitely be less that starting a new course.
This may concern only our juniors, not us, but it’s up to us to preserve the strong “branding” that our alumni have given us.
And yes, I hope corpcomm and whoever is reading this. Because a lot of us are indeed concerned with the new courses and believe there’s a better way to go about doing things.
nitha // August 20, 2008 at 1:25 pm |
I like the points you have raised Xian Jie. I totally agree with the points you have mentioned, and i feel that having a specialized diploma can be good on one hand (for the publicity of the school) however, have they taken into consideration about the students and maybe, how their job prospects might be affected in the long run?
For instance, in year 3, MCM, we are allowed to specialize in either Marcom, Broadcasting or Journ. Therefore, as such, aren’t we already fundamentally learning the adequate skills that will help us in the future. Yes, i realise that one could learn MORE with a specialized diploma (how much more, really?), but then what happens to people like me, who has specilaised? Does that mean if i go out with a Mass Comm dip VS APR, who would then get the job??
huiting // August 21, 2008 at 1:14 am |
Chinese Studies offers two tracks – teaching & Media.
So we can’t just change CHS to CMC.
Concerned // August 21, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
This doesn’t do any good in making both MCM and CHS unique… anymore.
To specialise or not to specialise « Satsueisha // August 22, 2008 at 12:43 am |
[...] Contact ← Duplication of courses: Why, and why not [...]
raynor // August 22, 2008 at 6:45 pm |
Reading this I was made to remember those days. The days when new technological-related diplomas sprung as if there was a sudden demand from the market.
It’s a common sight now. Take a look at the polytechnics around you and you can observe from a list of high profiled, popular diplomas VS the not-so-popular ones.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve a strange gut feel that people chose their desired diplomas based on diploma names. The funkier the name is, or the more professional it sounds, the better it will be.
I’m sure the school has its own reasons for offering these new courses, and yes, the downstream implications that can affect existing students.
It will be a better choice if schools collaborate and offer joint modules (or electives as you call them) rather than courses with overlapping prospects. This should suffice as they provide cross faculties knowledge and leverage on the amount of resources they already have.
The creation of new courses, in my opinion, are probably a marketing spiel. While the schools feel that the new diplomas are more aligned and relevant to the industry, I feel it’s simply crap and bull.
If there is a need to stay current, the course materials and curriculum should be considered.
Oh yes, speaking of which, the lack of resources are always a pain. And to the cavalier director who feels that leeching on another school’s resources is perfectly fine, I find it disgusting to come from an educator.
wth is school of humanities doing? « CLWY (: // October 29, 2008 at 11:37 pm |
[...] before you read the below, its wise only if you click here. [...]