No, mad_dude said they cannot speak English at ALL.
I've quoted it already and repeated this several times.
Let me quote some stuff from the BBC article for you
Degrees are being awarded to overseas students who speak almost no English, claims a whistleblowing academic.
But the whistleblowing academic, who wants to remain anonymous, describes a postgraduate system in which lecturers are expected to teach courses to overseas students who have only the most limited English.
"For example, last week I tried to speak to a student who could not understand a simple request; in the end, we had to resort to pen and paper," writes the academic, who works at a leading Russell Group university.
He highlights how attempts to help students with inadequate English can create other problems. If they have to use translators to produce essays, it makes it difficult to assess the quality of the original work.
Let me quote some stuff from the BBC article for you
"Whistleblowing academic" = disgruntled academic who was made redundant and who now is hell-bent on causing trouble. There are many people like that who appear to have far too much time on their hands.
Not saying it's not true. I don't know but I am taking it with a large pinch of salt.
"Whistleblowing academic" = disgruntled academic who was made redundant and who now is hell-bent on causing trouble. There are many people like that who appear to have far too much time on their hands.
Not saying it's not true. I don't know but I am taking it with a large pinch of salt.
Since the whistleblowing academic has not named his institution, course or name I very much doubt he is redunant. or that he is no longer employed at an institution
The 22 comments all backing up the article seem to suggest the academic wasnt lying either.
The comment from Professor Geoffery Alderman are not exactly against what the academic is saying either.
Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham is hardly an whistleblowing academic either.
So all the people commenting on the BBC article are lying?
mad_dude is lying?
My anecdote about a chinese student I know is a lie?
You might not be able to see how but you surely can admit there's enough evidence to show it is happening?
Easy tiger! I never called anyone a liar.
Having read the article, yep, there are certainly some aspects of it which I can identify with. I'm not saying that Higher Education is perfect. We live in the real world where universities are a business and need to recruit students to stay afloat and there are almost certainly dodgy recruitment practices going on. There are recruitment targets in the same way as say, recruitment consultants have targets and I'm pretty sure students get misled.
However, I also know that universities try so hard to try to make sure that where they can be, they are fair. They have to be. And I just think that people think universities are downright dodgy and in my experience, they try hard not to be, but can never guarantee it.
Since the whistleblowing academic has not named his institution, course or name I very much doubt he is redunant. or that he is no longer employed at an institution
But is completely feasible that he was made redundant from University A and is now employed by University B and harbours a massive grudge against his former employer.
The 22 comments all backing up the article seem to suggest the academic wasnt lying either.
The comment from Professor Geoffery Alderman are not exactly against what the academic is saying either.
Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham is hardly an whistleblowing academic either.
Please see my post above. I've never tried to say universities are perfect.
"Whistleblowing academic" = disgruntled academic who was made redundant and who now is hell-bent on causing trouble. There are many people like that who appear to have far too much time on their hands.
Not saying it's not true. I don't know but I am taking it with a large pinch of salt.
But is completely feasible that he was made redundant from University A and is now employed by University B and harbours a massive grudge against his former employer.
If he has a grudge against his former employer how come he hasnt named his former employer.
Having read the article, yep, there are certainly some aspects of it which I can identify with. I'm not saying that Higher Education is perfect. We live in the real world where universities are a business and need to recruit students to stay afloat and there are almost certainly dodgy recruitment practices going on. There are recruitment targets in the same way as say, recruitment consultants have targets and I'm pretty sure students get misled.
However, I also know that universities try so hard to try to make sure that where they can be, they are fair. They have to be. And I just think that people think universities are downright dodgy and in my experience, they try hard not to be, but can never guarantee it.
Fair to whom? I don't see the relevence with regards to this discussion.
And personally I have no interest in universities being fair. What I would like them to be is outstanding institutions of education that teach British students to the best of their ability.
Fair to whom? I don't see the relevence with regards to this discussion.
And personally I have no interest in universities being fair. What I would like them to be is outstanding institutions of education that teach British students to the best of their ability.
I mean fair in the sense as 'try their best to not be dodgy'.
Well it isa rather big flaw in attempting to challenge the articles reliability the fact that the institution or subject isnt named appears to suggest that it is genuine and not the product of a grudge.
Well it isa rather big flaw in attempting to challenge the articles reliability the fact that the institution or subject isnt named appears to suggest that it is genuine and not the product of a grudge.
I'm not arguing one side or the other. As I previously said I don't know how accurate it is and I'm not an expert in libel. Perhaps the BBC journalist chose not to identify the university. I've no idea.
May well be true but I can't be arsed to enter into pedantic debates.
I only posted originally to say that universities aren't as corrupt as some people think.
I only posted originally to say that universities aren't as corrupt as some people think.
It would contravene every concept of journalism to actually choose not to name the university the more specific you can be in the article. the easier it is to verify . if the BBC did not name the academic or the institution it was because they were asked not to.
I would disagree the hallowed halls of academia are viewed as uncorruptable. when in reality they are run like businesses and like businesses many universities are corrupt and will bend and break the rules to get more funding and move up the league tables. I saw corruptionin my university that included some academics. Some of the universities managment, The student union and the vice chancellor (The vice-chancellor afterall placed a statment on the universities intranet urging students to give positive marks in the National Student Survey, Then when an academic was rumbled to the times for proporting the same message.The VC Claim it was an isolated incident)From what I saw at my time in university I would say that corruption/manipulation was institution wide from news articles and speaking to academics. I dont think my institution is unique in that respect.
I'm not arguing one side or the other. As I previously said I don't know how accurate it is and I'm not an expert in libel. Perhaps the BBC journalist chose not to identify the university. I've no idea.
May well be true but I can't be arsed to enter into pedantic debates.
I only posted originally to say that universities aren't as corrupt as some people think.
I didn't think they were corrupt at all until this thread, why would they be?
Sounds naive but I had the obviously old fashioned view that they existed to educate those bright enough to attend.
And that they were supported by the tax payer because of the long term advantage for this country.
Now I find they are chasing money and not being very scrupulous about how they get it.
And they are being exploited by the eu (mind you, that's par for the course if ever there's eu and Britain in the same sentence).
It's the defence that gets me. We have great, world famous universities that have been beneficial to mankind the world over.
But that's allowed to be sacrificed for fear of being seen as xenophobic.
I've never noticed any communication problems like you've mentioned with international students. In some of my seminars (English Literature, so doubly hard if it isn't your first language) we've had French and German students whose English is as good as ours (if not better ) and they often add an interesting angle about words in the texts and so on.
I have friends who are next year studying abroad in Russia and Australia(!) and they'd be gutted if they couldn't go, or were treated badly because of their nationality once over there. It's a two-way street after all!
Comments
They won't though.
TBH it's the comments that are eye opening, all from people involved with universities.
Once again this goverment allows things to slide, encourages corruption and then turns around and says "nothing to do with us guvnor".
Let me quote some stuff from the BBC article for you
I know you have and I personally think that they could speak at least the basics. I can't see how they were given an offer to study otherwise
"Whistleblowing academic" = disgruntled academic who was made redundant and who now is hell-bent on causing trouble. There are many people like that who appear to have far too much time on their hands.
Not saying it's not true. I don't know but I am taking it with a large pinch of salt.
So all the people commenting on the BBC article are lying?
mad_dude is lying?
My anecdote about a chinese student I know is a lie?
You might not be able to see how but you surely can admit there's enough evidence to show it is happening?
OK it's a "claim" from an anonymous professor. So it may or may not be true.
Secondly how many Universities does this affect? Just his one, or others? And which others?
Thirdly the article claims they have "limited English" while you claim they cannot speak any English at all.
I'm still waiting for an examination as to how they can pass their exams, if they cannot speak any English at all.
Since the whistleblowing academic has not named his institution, course or name I very much doubt he is redunant. or that he is no longer employed at an institution
The 22 comments all backing up the article seem to suggest the academic wasnt lying either.
The comment from Professor Geoffery Alderman are not exactly against what the academic is saying either.
Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham is hardly an whistleblowing academic either.
Easy tiger! I never called anyone a liar.
Having read the article, yep, there are certainly some aspects of it which I can identify with. I'm not saying that Higher Education is perfect. We live in the real world where universities are a business and need to recruit students to stay afloat and there are almost certainly dodgy recruitment practices going on. There are recruitment targets in the same way as say, recruitment consultants have targets and I'm pretty sure students get misled.
However, I also know that universities try so hard to try to make sure that where they can be, they are fair. They have to be. And I just think that people think universities are downright dodgy and in my experience, they try hard not to be, but can never guarantee it.
But is completely feasible that he was made redundant from University A and is now employed by University B and harbours a massive grudge against his former employer.
Please see my post above. I've never tried to say universities are perfect.
Delete my post myseriously appeared.
If he has a grudge against his former employer how come he hasnt named his former employer.
Fair to whom? I don't see the relevence with regards to this discussion.
And personally I have no interest in universities being fair. What I would like them to be is outstanding institutions of education that teach British students to the best of their ability.
I dunno!!!
I mean fair in the sense as 'try their best to not be dodgy'.
Well it isa rather big flaw in attempting to challenge the articles reliability the fact that the institution or subject isnt named appears to suggest that it is genuine and not the product of a grudge.
Nope Russel Group are an umbrella organisation not an employment agency.
The Russell Group is a collaboration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Group
I'm not arguing one side or the other. As I previously said I don't know how accurate it is and I'm not an expert in libel. Perhaps the BBC journalist chose not to identify the university. I've no idea.
May well be true but I can't be arsed to enter into pedantic debates.
I only posted originally to say that universities aren't as corrupt as some people think.
It would contravene every concept of journalism to actually choose not to name the university the more specific you can be in the article. the easier it is to verify . if the BBC did not name the academic or the institution it was because they were asked not to.
I would disagree the hallowed halls of academia are viewed as uncorruptable. when in reality they are run like businesses and like businesses many universities are corrupt and will bend and break the rules to get more funding and move up the league tables. I saw corruptionin my university that included some academics. Some of the universities managment, The student union and the vice chancellor (The vice-chancellor afterall placed a statment on the universities intranet urging students to give positive marks in the National Student Survey, Then when an academic was rumbled to the times for proporting the same message.The VC Claim it was an isolated incident)From what I saw at my time in university I would say that corruption/manipulation was institution wide from news articles and speaking to academics. I dont think my institution is unique in that respect.
I didn't think they were corrupt at all until this thread, why would they be?
Sounds naive but I had the obviously old fashioned view that they existed to educate those bright enough to attend.
And that they were supported by the tax payer because of the long term advantage for this country.
Now I find they are chasing money and not being very scrupulous about how they get it.
And they are being exploited by the eu (mind you, that's par for the course if ever there's eu and Britain in the same sentence).
It's the defence that gets me. We have great, world famous universities that have been beneficial to mankind the world over.
But that's allowed to be sacrificed for fear of being seen as xenophobic.
I have friends who are next year studying abroad in Russia and Australia(!) and they'd be gutted if they couldn't go, or were treated badly because of their nationality once over there. It's a two-way street after all!