From mastc@maths.bath.ac.uk Fri May 21 13:56:33 1999 Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:35:00 +0100 (BST) From: T Clark To: MATH0027 , ma5jdt@bath.ac.uk, ma5jseo@bath.ac.uk, ma5pdb@bath.ac.uk, ma6bjh@bath.ac.uk, ma6crls@bath.ac.uk, ma6das@bath.ac.uk, ma6djah@bath.ac.uk, ma6gjc@bath.ac.uk, ma7ajf@bath.ac.uk, ma7ajh@bath.ac.uk, ma7asw@bath.ac.uk, ma7aw@bath.ac.uk, ma7cc@bath.ac.uk, ma7cel@bath.ac.uk, ma7cjf@bath.ac.uk, ma7dab@bath.ac.uk, ma7ehj@bath.ac.uk, ma7gdp@bath.ac.uk, ma7gy@bath.ac.uk, ma7jab@bath.ac.uk, ma7jdl@bath.ac.uk, ma7jkh@bath.ac.uk, ma7jks@bath.ac.uk, ma7jpc@bath.ac.uk, ma7lf@bath.ac.uk, ma7mdw@bath.ac.uk, ma7mts@bath.ac.uk, ma7mw@bath.ac.uk, ma7nas@bath.ac.uk, ma7ne@bath.ac.uk, ma7obj@bath.ac.uk, ma7op@bath.ac.uk, ma7pac@bath.ac.uk, ma7pd@bath.ac.uk, ma7rlw@bath.ac.uk, ma7sas@bath.ac.uk, ma7sdh@bath.ac.uk, ma7sje@bath.ac.uk, ma7sjh@bath.ac.uk, ma7smst@bath.ac.uk, ma7tgl@bath.ac.uk, ma7th@bath.ac.uk, ma7wfj@bath.ac.uk, ma7xz@bath.ac.uk, ma8emap@bath.ac.uk, ma8maao@bath.ac.uk, ma8mo@bath.ac.uk, ma8mwf@bath.ac.uk, ma8ni@bath.ac.uk, ma8oo@bath.ac.uk, ma8pb@bath.ac.uk, ma8rbs@bath.ac.uk, ma8vb@bath.ac.uk Subject: re: MATH0027 (fwd) ************************************************************ TO ALL STUDENTS TAKING MATH0027 I have received the following from a group of students taking this unit. I am forwarding it to all students taking this unit so that you also may have the opportunity to comment. If you do wish to add any further comments pleasse email them to me within the next few days. Dr K Walton Director of Studies ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 13:11:14 +0100 (BST) From: R L Wilson To: K Walton Subject: re: MATH0027 Dr Walton, As promised, here is our list of concerns. Could you please forward this to those members of the course as we can't forward to the whole of Maths because obviously, this does not affect everyone. In agreement so far Rachel Wilson Graham Yeadon Oliver Barton-Jones Adam Webb James Litchfield Steven Ellis Jon Bland Greg Penney John Collomosse Oliver Prescott * * * * * * * We are writing in order to register a complaint about the Object Orientated Mechanisms course (MATH0027). Please feel free to add any further points that we have not covered, or point out those that you do not agree with. We want this to reflect the general feeling, so that we will be taken seriously, and changes can be made for future years. LECTURES 1. The pace; Dr Padget condensed the entire 13 week course into just 8 weeks. After consultation with Dr Padget by the SSLC representative, where he was informrd of our concerns, Dr Padget seemed surprised that we couldn't cope with the speed but still did not rectify the problem. 2. Jargon; Fundamental, basic concepts (evan as basic as What is an object?) were not introduced. Explanations were given using very technical, abstract terms, as if lecturing an advanced course, assuming prior experience. 3. Languages; We were told that to a certain extent that we would have to be familiar with 4 different programming languages, C++, Javascript, lisp and Java. He demonstrated key points using these languages, without introducing syntax or structure (our first example was a page of code in a language most of us had never before encountered) 4. Assumptions; When we first applied to the University of Bath, we were told that no precious experience of programming or computing was expected. However, Dr Padgett frequently used terms and examples beyond our comprehension. We are certainly prepared to learn new languages, but to expect us to learn the syntax, style and have the experience to be able to program to his required standard is, we feel, beyond the scope of this course. Perhaps programming tutorials could be provided for those who are not familiar with all these languages. COURSEWORK 1. Level of difficulty; The programming ability expected in order to complete this coursework was incredibly high. Again, vast experience of C++ was assumed. Many advanced features of this language were required to solve the set assignments and were way beyond the capabilities of the majority. Because of this, it was very difficult to find help as the tutors, and even programmers with years of experience, could not implement the correct solution. 2. Choice of questions; Even though we were given a choice as to which questions to attempt. Many early questions were a prerequisite for those later. Therefore if one question could not be completed this ruled out up to 5 questions in total. 3. Code supplied; The code that Dr Padget supplied was not compliant with the ISO standard. Although he described his code as having "no guarantee as for fitness of purpose" it meant that those of us with home PC's had to do considerable research to rectify the problem. Also he used an example from a new feature of C++ - The Standard Template Library. His explanation in lectures was minimal and as this feature is so new, documentation was not available. EXAMINATION After leaving the exam room, general opinion was that many questions in the exam had not been sufficiently (if at all) covered during lectures. We have many examples, if you require further explanation. Some questions were not even relevant to the Object Orientated Mechanisms course. For example "true or false; the naming of the FLAVORS system was inspired by an ice cream shop". This piece of trivia was mentioned in passing during lectures and is certainly not written in the notes. Furthermore, we feel that losing marks due to a question such as this (amongst other examples) does not reflect, in any way, our ability or knowledge of Object Orientated Systems. We would like to point out that we are not merely making excuses for ourselves but rather that we are very unhappy with the exam and the course in general.