Feedback from SRAO

In preparation for a meeting with Cathy Powley she gathered up this feedback from her team  on the new way we plan to express degree requirements. Encouraging, but signals that we styill have room to improve

Cathy

Much clearer and easy to understand for people not inside the VUW system.

Major requirements much clearer talking about courses rather than points required.

Development Studies (see BSc and also BA) – this is a really hard major to plan (and to understand for students). Requires students to choose ‘pathways’ through the major, and set up their 200 and 300 level choices in first year. Some explanation of this would be really helpful (such as the tables included in the handbook).

Environment Science (see BSc)  – this too is confusing. It’s great you have the info on it needing a ‘partner’ major. Maybe a bit more explaining of which courses can count towards both majors and which can’t? (first year ok, after that??)

Sophia

Those look really good – he’s done a great job at making everything clear and the outsider’s perspective on what makes sense is probably going to be really beneficial.

Definitely needs to mention Admission on every page, and it could be helpful to cover some of our common questions: can I do this part-time? Can I start mid-year? How much will it cost? Etc…

Lylla

Can they all be consistent with giving their recommended workload/points per year?

None make mention of the usual time to complete the degree eg: 3 or 4 years full-time study. This makes it easy to explain the ‘recommended workload’.

Perhaps * Total of 360 points required (recommended 120 points per year/3 years full-time study). Something like that…

Richard

I like it, seems pretty clear to me. I especially like the 2 courses, 3 courses as opposed to points. This is much easier for a prospective student to understand.

It obviously needs to be proofread as there are plenty of spelling and grammar mistakes etc but I get that we are more looking at the ‘vibe’ here!

I don’t have anything too specific, but I find this style easier to navigate and it seems clear to me.

Leah

 I like the consistency between faculties!

They are a little hard to read as they are (in draft form), but in terms of the degree requirements I like that there is consistency in the way they read.

And like Richard said – using ‘courses’ instead of points is a good idea! Less confusing for students.

 I find the BTM requirements a little odd to read (but that might just be me, and I’m not really sure of better way of presenting them! I’ll keep thinking on that one)

 That’s all from me at the moment J