...
"Rationalise": A challenging assumption
- Keith Bolland (Unlicensed) after the discussion with Ian I realise more input is required on subjects. I have put the task ico at the "ratioinalise" only as an indication of one decision point. Please lend some assistance and let @Chrissi know how we can best draw the core team in here. By
...
Background documents for WIP-II identified a statement that this project should "rationalise the subject listing for a web/online purpose". In treating this as an assumption (even before figuring out what was meant by "rationalise"?) . Despite reading some I was unable to find any written record of why we need to rationalise. Further, there is good work on how this could be achieved (and even a proposed new and shorter subject list) I have yet to see any but no compelling reason or driver for this to be an objective or aim for the subject domain. The two three best reasons (and a response) are:
- The list is too long for on-screen navigation: The length of the subject list is not the problem, rather it is how the subjects are listed on-screen. The solution lies in better UI design and use of tools (e.g. search, filter, etc);
- Related to this is how students search for subjects. Do they go looking for German and expect to find it, otherwise walk away. Or would they search for German and be un-phased if it was a specialisation of Language and Culture? Would a student look for science (the highest level), biology or biological science (a mid level term) or, biomedical or biotechnology? While search can relate these and return all/some/prioritised, we may need to put ourselves in the users shoes and pitch it at their level.
- Cost/resources to maintaining so many subjects: While there will be a cost to maintain a subject, it is probably very small compared to the cost of maintaining a course, because courses are far more than a web page (i.e. they have staff, rooms, printing, etc). If it were a matter of findings (or even making) savings then subjects is a low return place to start looking.
- However, the proposed subject pages would be considerably more expensive to maintain, as they would have data that requires updating more frequently (e.g. income, vacancy, etc). Further, the data sources might not even have the granularity that we require and publishing "aggregate" data on a detailed page does miss the point/mark.
- Students, especially at the UG level, are unlikely to have the discernment or awareness required to fully appreciate the differences between closely related subjects. In contrast, after completing a entry or foundational degree students would have a much better understanding of the specialisation available at PG level. This would lead us to fewer subjects at the UG level and more at the PG.
The argument to rationalise the subject list, if this means reduce, is underwhelming
...