1 - 9 News.indd - Felix

4
NEWS
In brief
Simon Singh speaks on libel
success and the road ahead
Photo by Slobodan Radosavljevic
On Monday the 15th, Simon Singh announced that
he would deliver a talk at Imperial College. He was
talking at the Neonatal Update 2010 seminar taking
place at the college for academics from around
the world. Dr Singh’s talk was free for all to attend,
but sadly poorly promoted to the rest of the college.
Since his packed-out talk last year, the author of
‘Fermat’s Last Theorem’ has won the libel case that
has propelled him from being a brilliant science journalist
to a crusader for the reform of Britain’s byzantine
and horrendously damaging libel laws and the
de-facto spokesman for anti-alternative medicine –
while keeping the incredibly cool hair.
A short history of the case of Singh vs. the British
Chiropractic Association highlights all that is
currently wrong with the libel laws in this country.
From the almost worshipful tones that the audience
phrased their questions to Simon, there was a real
indication of how much the scientifi c community appreciates
his efforts to tackle the libel laws head
on. After he published an article in The Guardian
in 2006 criticising chiropractors for offering to treat
infant diseases such as colic when there was no
scientifi c evidence to support their claims that it
worked, Singh was personally sued by the BCA for
libel. If the fact that a person can be sued for libel
by simply stating scientifi c fact makes you angry,
the rest of Singh’s talk would leave you blind with
rage. He outlined how incredibly easy it is to accuse
someone of libel; how even legal victory can lose
you well over £100,000 in legal fees; and worst of
all, how hard it is to defend yourself in terms of the
law, even when science backs you up.
A brilliant and entertaining public speaker, Singh’s
lecture was given with the effortless cool that we
expect from the only astrophysics professor to have
wire-framed round glasses and a meticulous hifade,
even in photographs of him having acupuncture
to the face. Informative and funny, Imperial’s
coolest alumnus since HG Wells convinced all and
sundry present to sign up to his campaign at www.
libelreform.org.
Matt Allinson
Friday 19 NOVEMBER 2010
FELIX
News Editors: Matt Colvin
Alex Karapetian
news.felix@imperial.ac.uk
At the beginning of term, the Rector called for action to
improve coursework assessment and marking, so...
Has feedback improved?
Sophia David
The start of term saw Imperial announce
a campaign to improve the assessment of
students’ work. Ahead of the end of term
surveys, Felix investigates the improvements
that have been made. Has the college
gone far enough or is there still more
that should be done?
The National Student Survey showed
assessment and feedback were lagging
way behind other areas in college which
otherwise scored exceptionally. The Rector,
Keith O’Nions called for ‘strong and
concerted action’ and recommended a two
week feedback deadline.
This deadline is now being implemented
in almost every department across
college. If a piece of work takes longer
to mark, lecturers must justify this to the
Director of Undergraduate Studies and inform
the students.
The only department not implementing
the two week deadline is Civil Engineering,
whose ‘timetable did not permit the
change’, remarked Alex Dahinten, Deputy
President (Education). ‘They have,
however, reduced the average time to
return feedback to students considerably
over the past years’. The department itself
was not available for comment.
From my own experience in Biology,
lecturers judge the new rules as fair to students
even if they generate added pressure
for staff. Steve Cook, Head of fi rst year
Biology, commented that, ‘For essays,
balancing the requirements for speed and
consistency in marking is tricky, but this
has always been the case.’ In second year,
one exception to the rule has been permitted,
a 20+ page bioinformatics project,
with one lecturer marking 150 pieces of
work. Students are very reasonable and
understand the 3 week turnaround given
to this project.
However, general consensus among
students across departments is that whilst
timeliness of feedback has almost certainly
improved this year, the quality of
feedback is much the same. The main issue
raised by students questioned by Felix
was that feedback remained ‘impersonal’.
‘Quality of marking to me is far more
important that the speed with which we
get it back. Of course I don’t want it
back months later as happened in a few
instances last year, but a little more oneto-one
interaction between lecturer and
student would help tremendously’, commented
a second year biology student.
But students and staff differ in their criteria
of what constitutes good feedback.
Whilst students call for more detailed
personal feedback, many staff readily dismiss
its importance.
Photo by Tom Welch
Look at her waste away her degree on Facebook. Damn you Zuckerberg!!!
Have your say on
this article at
felixonline.co.uk
Frank Berkshire, director of undergraduate
studies in Mathematics, told
Felix that ‘Personal feedback is deliberately
not aimed to provide a full
blow-by-blow account of what has gone
wrong, but to indicate where and how, so
that students can fi nd their way through
to an improvement in performance.’
Perhaps students also need to broaden
their ideas on what constitutes feedback
and accept that it comes in a variety of
forms, an idea suggested by Alex Dahinten,
Deputy President (Education).
‘A lecturer discussing the major issues
in the last coursework is feedback. Red
pen annotations on your lab scripts is
feedback. Even verbal conversation
about the previous coursework is feedback.’
Students take feedback very seriously
and rightly so. ‘If College wishes for
Imperial to be ‘world-class’ in teaching
and learning, then it needs to be ‘world-
class’ in feedback as well; lecturers have
an obligation to ensure that the feedback
students receive is of good quality’, said
Alex Dahinten.
When students put a great deal of
time and effort into a piece of work,
they expect their marks to be justifi ed,
wrong-doings explained and methods
for improvement highlighted. Late and
poor quality feedback not only dissatisfi
es students but prepares them poorly
for exams.
With tuition fees for international students
of over £20,000, and the prospect
of UK/EU fees being trebled to £9000,
there is growing consensus among students
that they should still get value
for money. Rightly so, students should
expect nothing more than exceptional
standards in all areas of teaching including
feedback.
Dissatisfi ed students have the right to
challenge their department over any issues
by approaching their year or departmental
reps. The rep system can play a
vital role in seeking out those members
of staff whose feedback does not live up
to the standards students expect.
Improving student satisfaction with
assessment and feedback is going to be
no easy task. Positive steps have certainly
been made this term by strict implementation
of deadlines and students
should recognise that. But they should
also not be afraid to speak out and voice
their concerns over departments and
staff neglecting their obligation to provide
decent feedback.
Perhaps a signifi cant shift in mind-set
of students is also required of students.
We must forget the days of being spoonfed
in school and accept the different
nature of university feedback. It is our
responsibility to pave our own way forward.