Talk:Open University/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Ou @ NL

I hate to break it to you, but there is an OU in Holland and in Belgium as well. --Kim Nevelsteen 20:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Are you going to write an article on it? Are you going to mention it on this page? Are you asking for this to be a disambiguation page? Let us know. --rbrwr ^± 20:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Note to self (or any other non-Dutch speakers): English site here; they use "Open Universiteit Nederland" as their name, even in English. --rbrwr ^± 20:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

and then it can go in [[Category:Open Universities]] --Concrete Cowboy 16:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are Open Universities all over the world -- but the OU is THE Open University -- the first and the institution that all others are based on.

I'm going to add a link at the top to the Open university listing page, precisely because this UK one is THE OU, so people should realise that it isn't THE ONLY OU. 218.102.71.163 03:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Alumni

There seems to be a sudden rash of editing / adding OU/OUBS alumni. Given that there are a lot of such graduates (including :: cough :: myself) in addition to all the honorary degrees conferred each year, this could get to be a *very* long list very quickly. I believe that either

this needs moving to a separate page,
a category should be used instead, tagged onto people who are alumni (and thus no list is made), the cat being linked from the page

or

there should be no list of alumni (staff nor student) created at all.

--Vamp:Willow 19:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A seperate list is probably a good idea. Although I typically would only list notable alumni, and generally those that were students, not staff. Spinboy 19:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will create a separate page called List of Open University Alumni which I will link from the Open University page. Fountainofignorance

I think a list of ~12 noteable alumni would be in order, i think if someone like the prime minister of Ethiopia is an OU graduate that is something worth mentioning, and a link to the main alumni article should be included in the section Fasach Nua 19:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Academics

Could some smart bunny put something along the lines of:

See also [[Category:Academics_of_the_Open_University]]

at the start of the notable academices section, I cant figure out how it's done! Fasach Nua 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Restructure

I think this article is getting a bit disjointed, I would like to restructure it something along the lines of:

   * 1 Aims
   * 2 Foundation
   * 3 Qualifications
         o 3.1 Undergraduate
         o 3.2 Postgraduate
         o 3.3 Awards (Degree ceremonies)
   * 4 Personell
         o 4.1 Students
         o 4.2 Notable current and former academics
         o 4.3 Notable graduates
         o 4.4 Associate Lectures
   * 5 Teaching and Assesment
         o 5.1 Teaching methods
         o 5.2 Assessment methods
   * 6 Business school
   * 7 Research
   * 8 In fiction
   * 9 References
   * 10 External links
   * 11 See also

Thoughts? Fasach Nua 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 21:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

Can I just ask why ECAs are not mentioned as part of the assessment process - or are they and I've just misunderstood? --Vertilly 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a little on ECAs - feel free to add more - be bold! Berek 15:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, ok I've added a few words and corrected what ECA stands for. Hope it makes sense! --Vertilly 14:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

end

It's ending now. should that b added?--Slogankid 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What is ending? The OU? Is it a joke?--Jörgen Tehor 23:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Certificates and Diplomas

There is no mention of certificates and diplomas, two more qualifications that can be gained before (or even instead of) an undergraduate degree. Can someone please fix it?Jörgen Tehor 23:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"although courses cannot be counted after six years after its final presentation"

i can't find a source for this, infact it seems to contradict BD 7.1 of the open degree regulations. i'll remove it if no one finds a citation--Mongreilf (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC) There is a time limit for courses to count as grade score towards degree classification. Thought it was eight years. may vary for different named degrees. Courses in general count back to 1970. Did a bit with the OU myself.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to commercial site

External link to [http://www.openuniversityuk.co.uk/index.php Open University Students Helpline] is to a strange site full of Google ads and bad advice. I noted this in an edit which has been reverted by the author of the original link (and registrant of the site). Can someone else have a look? Nogbad (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For my money, it fails WP:LINKSTOAVOID #1, #2, #4 and #13, so I'll remove it. Can people please discuss here before re-adding it. Thanks, Severo^TC 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! That is a site by me and my wife. We thought we'd be able to help someone and keep busy after retirement, but if you think that the advice is bad, we apologise and accept the link removal. We are ex-students of the open university and the google ads were just to get the fee of our domain out of it.. anyway, it hasn't made any money for us and they have been removed now. Thanks for going through and letting us know. Regards Steve Waldron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.154.248 (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

'open'

Just wondering why 'open' has the quotes either side of it in the first sentence. Was going to edit it, but thought I'd better check first, just in case I missed something. Lost Garden 19:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suspect the author was tryng to emphasise the point that open was being used as an adjective relating to a learning philosophy, rather than Open refering specifically to the OU. I would be happy to leave it as is, or remove the quote marks Fasach Nua 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The OU is a distance learning provider with an open admissions policy - I think the first sentence should reflect that and is misleading as it stands. Nogbad (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Degree Ceremonies

Is this section still accurate? My sister's MA ceremony was last September and it seemed to me to be a fully fledged graduation ceremony with conferments, honorary degrees etc... Timrollpickering 22:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated this to better reflect the formal position. Basically, at many Universities (many other chartered ones at least) a degree isn't conferred (and therefore cannot technically be claimed to be held) until the ceremony has taken place. The ceremony will usually have the presiding officer formally speak some words conferring the degrees on behalf of the University. However, at the OU, the ceremony is a celebration of degrees technically already conferred. Savirr 14:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nature of graduation ceremonies

Posted to Timrollpickering and Savirr

I have just read the discussion on the Open University talk page about the nature of Open University graduation ceremonies. Since it is rather an old debate I thought I'd send you this message and then copy it to the page, otherwise it probably wouldn't be read. I think that the University of London must confer degrees in a similar way. I have here my certificate from the University of Lonon, which reads

N, having completed the approved course of study and passed the examination has this day been admitted by The School of Oriental and African Studies to the University of London Degree of Master of Arts with Distinction in [Subject] [signed] Director and Principal, The School of Oriental and African Studies [and] Vice-Chancellor 1 December 2006 [The Seal of the University of London]

By 1 December 2006 I did not even have my results and received this certificate long after the degree was conferred. Then only on 29 July of the following year was there a graduation ceremony (which I did not attend). Surely my degree was actually conferred, retrospectively, when the seal of the University was applied to the certificate. The ceremony was, I think, just for show. On the other hand I have from Oxford a certificate thus:

This is to certify that N [College] satisfied the Examiners in the Final Honour School of [School] on [date] and was placed by them in [class] and, having satisfied all the conditions prescribed by the Statutes of the University, was on 23 October 2004 admitted to the Degree of [DEGREE] University Offices, Oxford. 24 January 2008 [signed] Registrar [sealed]

23 October was the date of the ceremony.

Also interesting is the the name of my degree from Oxford is just 'Bachelor of Arts', with no mention of the subject or class (which is reflected in the programme for the ceremony) whereas I think my University of London degree is actually 'Master of Arts with Distinction in [Subject]'. It will be interesting to see what happens if I try to graduate with an MA in another subject from the University of London. At Oxford it would be absolutely impossible - when you have been admitted to the degree of, say, Bachelor of Arts, if you take another Final Honour School you cannot enter the degree for a second time. --Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Previous Name

I've a feeling that, possibly before it opened, the OU was described as "The University of the Air". Is that true? If so, it could be in the article.Millbanks (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comments

I came to this article after reading Neil Fraser's Discussion of his experiences with OU and was surprised to see that OU was actually considered by some to be more than a degree factory. Well, if nobody reviews his research, and marks it without even seeing it, and that this is condoned at high levels by the university, I know how much credibility I'll give to any degrees from OU...

hmm, disappointing. i found ou via a series of academic papers published by their faculty in the area of the semantic web. the research seems legitimate and peers seem to respect it. presumably a large institution like this has good and bad aspects, but unless Fraser is out to get them -- and it certainly does not look like he is -- something is not right. Burgher 04:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think anyone who works in any university will have come across people like Neil Fraser - "I'm not going to do what I'm asked to do, I'm going to do what I think I should have been asked to do". Part of getting on with any university course is working out what the game is, and playing that game. Some people (often very intelligent in other areas) just don't grasp that, and they have a rotten experience as a result. --ajn (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It does remind me of the time I was studying an OU computing course and as part of an assignment I was required to submit a program that ran on some emulator software. The assignment requested screenshots of output from the program running. I decided to upload the program I had written instead, after all it was to run on OU software anyway. Of course this was wrong and it was rejected out of hand, even though it was a good program, the tutor has to treat everyone the same way and work according to the course structure. I was annoyed at the time but have learned my lesson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.66.121 (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally the OU projects are based on taught modules taken earlier in the degree programme, therefore the technical aspects have already been fully examined and assessed already. In my opinion the point of the project is to prove you can manage projectwork, ie setting realistic timetables, performing background research, impatrially evaluating your own work and of course effectively communicating your results in your thesis. The actual project is somewhat secondary to how you actually approach the problem and what you learn from going through the process. Fasach Nua 09:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Neil seems to have absolute evidence that the reviewers at OU never read his submissions and yet graded him (poorly) on it anyway. This should be considered unacceptable in any case. However, the management at OU condoned it and made really ridiculous excuses about how it's not customary to read submissions before grading them. I don't think that ajn's comments above make any sense in this context. I've read Neil's blog and there's no question in my mind that he's far smarter than the average bear; in all probability, he's far smarter than his graders. And if research projects are not based on original research, but rather regurgitating what you've already been fed in some class, then it's hardly encouraging original thought, or development of the state of knowledge of mankind. Any university should encourage original research, especially by smart people. This didn't appear to be the case here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.88.220 (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2006

Forgive me for diving in late - but isn't the point of an undergraduate project to demonstrate time-management / research / planning skills. The "original research" may be a duplicate of that carried out by someone else elsewhere. The purpose may be to develop the thought of the student (but that is also done by high-grade achievers in courseworks and in discussions with tutors (Oxbridge like banging on about their 'unique' tutoring styles) - I finished one 2nd year IT course with an overall mark of 96% (including the exam), and I got there by using thought well outside that on the course - I was perhaps lucky to have a tutor who took the time to read some of my "different" solutions, which were however submitted through 'convential' channels, rather than just using a standard mark-hint sheet, which I have also had experience of (only got 80-something there!). The development of the knowledge of mankind is primarily the work of PhD students. First you walk, then you run, then you start to break records.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Fraser's website contained additional material, comparable to an appendix. There seems to be evidence that this wasn't looked at -- not his actual submission. Perhaps the actual submission was considered so weak (as the marks suggest) that there was no point in the marker looking at superfluous material. I agree with ajn's comments entirely: one of the favourite hobbies of the (often adult) student is claiming that you know more than the lecturers. Every subject gets it. Beginning film studies students think they are experts because they have every copy of Empire and have listened to the director's commentary on the Pulp Fiction DVD. Everyone has their gripes, some justified, but it's not really a good idea to cite individual cases like this when the only source is basically a blog. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is, was he asked to submit his work by putting it on an external website? That would be incredibly unusual in my experience (I supervise MSc projects at another university), and has obvious problems for auditing. There's no indication in the OU's research project dissertation module regulations (M801) that work put on an external website will be marked or looked at - the module is marked on a series of uploaded assignments (via the OU's eTMA system) and a submitted dissertation (on paper, presumably). Fraser has no way of knowing how often any of that will have been looked at, and by whom. If he decided unilaterally to put most of his work somewhere not specified in the regulations, then it probably won't have been looked at, and for good reason. Material that ought to be marked, ought to be in the report. The OU, like every other UK university, has its examination procedures overseen by external examiners from other institutions. --ajn (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, everyone's talking about me! [blush]

With regards to putting work on a website, the supervisor was repeatedly stating that the project was unworkable, too ambitious, unrealistic, etc without ever pointing at anything specific. So I've been trying for months to get him to click on a link which shows the project running live. Since he also seems unable to comprehend the algorithms I developed, I've created interactive web-based demos for him to use. But he simply will not click the link. He just keeps marking the project as impractical.

With regards to the overall quality of the work, there is one entity who did read it and pass judgement on it: Google. They spotted it on their own and made an unsolicited job offer I couldn't refuse. Woo! NeilFraser 21:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any connection to the Open University, but it looks like most of the criticism in this case is misplaced. Some posters on this thread seem to assume that the University "never read his submissions, yet graded them anyway". Judging from Neil Fraser's webpage, the truth seems to be that the Open University read and marked all of the work that he submitted according to the regulations of the degree (as they will have done with every other student), but that they didn't go and look at his personal website and give him extra marks for that. I'm a Humanities student, so things are a little different, but when I am asked for a 3,000 word essay, I don't start complaining about the fact that the tutor gave me a mark for the essay without looking at the supporting three-hour power-point presentation that I posted on my personal website. It would be ridiculous, and obviously unfair, to expect a University to give students extra marks for work that they weren't asked to do. If Neil Fraser was asked to submit his work as written papers and a written dissertation, then he will quite rightly have been marked on the information in his written work, and nothing else. As for whether he deserved the low marks, that is an entirely different matter. Tutors sometimes make mistakes, but the validation system is designed to ensure that one rogue tutor can't downgrade a person's work without agreement with a second marker (as the Open University pointed out). It could be that the work was so groundbreaking that the tutors didn't understand it, but it could equally be that - however good the project work - the write-up was unsuccessful. A Master's degree is an academic, not a vocational qualification, so it requires academic as well as practical skills. It could be that Neil Fraser's idea is good enough to persuade Google to employ him, but that his academic write-up of the idea did not do the work justice, or simply that the work in its final form (however good in its own way) was not suitable for a Masters dissertation, as the tutor seems to have been saying. ThomasL (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that this wasn't an essay, but was instead the communication between a student and his academic advisor. The job of an academic advisor for a master's dissertation is to be actively interested and involved in the project. It is unacceptable for an academic advisor to refuse to ever look at the project they are 'advising'.

In the end it didn't matter: They never even read the final dissertation. Although it was submitted electronically on time and my FedEx receipt shows the paper copy was delivered on time, they claim the latter arrived a week too late. So my £7,000 went down the drain. NeilFraser (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Egregious quality problems

Some courses teaching gibberish? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/stob_open_university_trick_question/ The paper sure seems to be gibberish with no relevance to the course topic. Worth incorporating, isolated case, or both?--67.169.60.252 (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In the wide scheme of things, not really important. I doubt theregister could be considered a reliable source anyway. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you back up your assertion that it's not really important? And why wouldn't it be an RS? "The Register is the UK's biggest online tech publication, with 1.5 million readers a month in its home country and more than five million readers worldwide."^[1] Also, I recall Orlowski writes for (Conde Nast's) Wired as well.--67.169.60.252 (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Several thousand students. One perceived problem, written about in a highly subjective way.
This, however, seems to suggest that the site can be considered reliable. What makes me wary, though, is the history of anonymous user(s) wanting to use this article for their soapbox about the University's computing degrees. If I recall correctly, someone disagreed with their supervisor's opinion of their project and took the huff. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps it shouldn't go on the page. I'm not adding it, based on the current information and our discourse. Wasn't aware of the history of the article; never looked at it. Any other data or opinions out there?--67.169.60.252 (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point about "any other data". Sounds like somebody had a bad time at the Open University. I am guessing at least one student and probably more can be found to have been treated badly/ received poor quality teaching at every university, and many others who received high quality teaching at the same institutions. Where does this leave us regarding balance in articles? I've got some friends who could tell you about teaching standards at Oxford and Cambridge for example... --mgaved (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and people are more likely to tell stories about bad experiences. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In fiction

The In fiction section seems to contain trivial material. Should it be shortened? RJFJR (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"People from all walks of life and all ages take advantage of the OU"

Reads like promotional material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is why, among other reasons, I tagged this article as written like an advertisement. G y re 04:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, taking advantage of something implies an unfair advantage, which is not what the writer meant. I would suggest "make use of the OU" or "take degree courses at the OU". Bmcln1 (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction summary

"In May 2009, David Cameron, leader of the United Kingdom political Conservative Party and a regular speaker at the Open University campus in Milton Keynes, delivered a keynote speech praising the OU for 'innovation'.[17] As recent as 7 June 2010, and now serving as the newly elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron once again returned to choose the Open University campus to deliver another keynote speech on the United Kingdom's economy and outline his new government's plans to tackle the economic challenges that lay ahead.[18]"

Is the above relevant information to an introductory passage of an article? Or is it just advertising a political party? --86.183.250.58 (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

European universities by size/enrollment

See List of largest universities by enrollment and List of UK universities by size (figures are out of date)

See also List of United States colleges and universities by enrollment

List of EU universities according to the size of their student population:

1st? Spiru Haret University (Romania): 311.928? (2009/2010?) 302,000? (2009/2010?) ?? (2009/2010?) [dubious, no official data]^{[dubious – discuss]}

2nd(–2nd–1st). National University of Distance Education (Spain): 260,079 (2011/2012)

3rd(–1st–2nd). Open University (UK): 253,075 (2009/2010), does anyone have recent data about OU? Thanks in advanced.85.56.140.223 (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Futurelearn

I'm a research student at the OU so reluctant to add this myself, but there's been a lot of press coverage and discussion recently re: the OU's foray into moocs with Futurelearn, I wonder if some discussion of this step, Cameron speeches, issues around it, etc. should be added? Sjgknight (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A slight inaccuracy

I've been reading the main article, and it says "unlike at campus universities, whhere students register for programmes, OU students register for separate modules" - sorry if I haven't quoted word-for-word, this quote was drawn from my memory - and from my own experience, this quote is somewhat inaccurate. I'm currently going through enrolling for my law degree with the OU, and they ask you to register for a degree first, AND THEN register for the modules that are to count towards that degree. Therefore, the quoted section needs to be updated.

--The Historian (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms

The College of Arms said in its newsletter of December 2011[1]:

OPEN UNIVERSITY. Arms, Crest and Supporters in substitution for those previously granted to the Open University in 1971. Garter, Clarenceux and Norroy and Ulster Kings of Arms. 15/6/2011. College reference: Grants 175/341.

Presumably, then, the arms shown on this article have been superseded. Can anyone tell us about the new arms, or why they changed? Marnanel (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the coat of arms has changed, as can be seen at the bottom of most pages in the official web site, although I can't find any image that fully represents it. The interesting fact is that apparently very few among the academic staff and students noticed. It might be worthwhile inquiring if they can provide an updated specimen. 81.129.177.4 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

The very dated fashions of the TV presenters - I can't believe that this reference is actually missing from the OU Wikipedia entry to be honest, surely most laymen mention this about the OU when the topic comes up? It was notorious for it when taught via Television;

e.g. the main Periodic Table in Chemistry was filled in long before the OU started, so once any TV instruction show on that particular topic was made (say in 1971), it didn't need to be re-shot for the later OU students of say 1984, but could just be re-run. Meaning those 1971 presenters (and their outfits and hairstyles etc) would be seen by the later 1984 students. The 1970's being "the decade which fashion forgot" making such things even more startling to those later viewers.

The comedian Jasper Carrott once said something like - "It is difficult to understand the Principles Of Thermonuclear Dynamics on The Open University when being taught it by Manfred Mann." - and the audience roared with laughter.

(Manfred Mann's beard was never that big actually - I've certainly seen bigger and bushier).

Article - `The Open University has made its last broadcast, marking the end of an era. Some 36 years after the first programme, the "televarsity" is moving to media like DVDs and the internet. But it is less the programmes' educational content and more the 1970s fashions and stilted delivery of presenters that many people will miss. An OU spokesman said: "Just as there are different ways to dress, there are different ways to deliver education."'

Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6182747.stm

I don't know how you put all that in a referenced form on the OU entry, but I say it needs to be on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien (talk • contribs) 18:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday, (26th Jan)I put a lot of external links here. I'm sorry you deleted them. You sent me a message telling me not to do external links like that. I won't do it again. Please remember, I'm new here. I put at least an hour's work into those links. The links would help anyone else who wants to fill in the details.

The external links aspect is one of the most useful parts of Wikipedia. I hope that whoever removed them was not too zealous in their activities and so spoil it for the rest of us Godfinger 13:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"It consistently ranks amongst the UK's top ten universities." Do we have any source for this?

The 19 subjects with an excellent rating for teaching place the OU among the top 10 universities in the country on this measure. - The Sunday Times University Guide 2003

The Open University does not appear in the table because it operates entirely through distance learning. As a result, measures of spending on libraries and other facilities do not apply, and comparisons with conventional universities on measures such as staffing levels would be misleading The Times Good University Guide Q&A

The OU is a British University NOT just an English one. It has premises in every region of the UK and supplies exactly the same courses to students throughout the whole United Kingdom (and in Europe, Africa and Asia too for that matter). --VampWillow 23:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That would make it a UK university, not just a British one, then. Continental Europe are considered part of Region 9 (the Northeast of England), though Ireland has its own regional centre (Region 12). --Kain 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What does the following mean?

...there is generally no limit on the time which a student may take, although courses cannot be counted after a great number years. Cut off is 1970, i believe.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's no time limit, how come courses can't be counted after a long time? Loganberry 02:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The text is misleading. There is no fixed number of semesters a student may spend studying, however, some qualifications require that contributory courses were not completed more than, say, four years preiously. The idea is that a student can happily study an eclectic mixture of courses over any number of decades without any problem.

However, if the student wishes to achieve a certain qualification, it is important that the knowledge acquired is current. Otherwise you would have a situation where a student completes 18 biology courses over the duration of, say, three decades, yet expects to be granted a bachelor's degree in biology, even though much of the data is sure to be outdated. rquinn 16:48, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

The only courses I've seen where it is explicitly stated that there is a time limit for inclusion in qualifications, are the computing and IT courses, that can only count for eight years after their final presentation. --Kain 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To add further to the above, courses at the OU are split into 'levels' and courses at a higher level are likely to requier the student to have studied a particular course at a lower level. As courses are only available for a set period - sometimes five years but up to a maximum of nine, and only one year in certain faculities like Law - and may not be replaced with an equivalent course, then this means that the usefulness of some courses disappears over time. --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 16:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) (who has some 'unused' courses from the 1980's on her OU student record!)

I believe the 1970(ish!) cut-off is because there was a chnage in the way University were licenced/chartered/approved at about that time. I believe that significant changes which restricted the potential number of routes to qualifications, basically, an increase in formality.
The time limits in general are to ensure that a qualification has some relevance to the curent situation. If someone has just passed a degree, one would expect them to know something about current trends in the field, while if someone has studied something 20+ years ago, then they are unlikely to know the current trends. As I understand it, courses can still be counted for points towards non-core courses, but cannot be counted towards the grading element for honours degrees (the degree grade being based on relevant 2nd- and 3rd- year equivalent material, with greater weighting being given to the third). So presumably one can still get an ungraded Ordinary degree using old (but post-1970) courses.
The contributor above is correct in saying that IT course seem to have an 8 year cut-off, but then in a fast changing field, this is understandable. Law has a 6 academic year course limit for a qualifying law degree - i.e. one recognised by the legal profession as an entry route to the profession. If one is happy with a non-qualifying degree (say an inmate of on of Her Majesty's 'hotels' who wants it for practical reasons or to assist his colleagues, or to subsequently work in a CAB, for example), or if one want to do it for career development (say as background to a management/business career), then I am not aware of any limit, even on law courses - for someone working for themselves, a reasonable knowledge of the law can save a lot of time and bother later. But as law degrees tend to be a good bit more expensive (!!), then it is not perhaps a cost-effective route unless one wants a 'Qualifying' law degree.

--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable Graduates

Unresolved

– 25/09/2013 Hindley has been added & deleted a number of times with no clear consensus in this discussion

Wouldn't it be best not to advertise the fact that Myra Hindley studied at Open University, as it is not very good press, even if she is "notable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.106.149 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2007

Wikipedia is not censored, and is not advertising. If this were a brochure, or a website designed to advertise the University, then I'd probably agree. However, it's neither of those. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with The JPS's comments, however I beleive this that the inclusion of this person is a very positive thing, in that it demonstrates the true openess of this university, in that it has given someone who was regularly described as "the most hated woman in Britain" an opportunity to undertake a tertiarry education. The primary goal of the OU is to open education to all, and I can think of few better examples of this than the work it does in the prisons! Fasach Nua 11:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting the recent removal of Myra Hindley from the list of graduates. As has been noted before, OU work with prisoners is more that adequately noteworthy. jxm (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of serial killers and other nefarious people in history who have attended universities. Ted Kaczynski attended Harvard, for example. I don't see the need to note Hindley as alumni on the OU's article simply because it's a distance learning university. JJARichardson (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue of notability in this case is that Hindley studied and received her OU degree while in prison, unlike Kaczynski and - as you say - numerous other nefarious types. jxm (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hindley has just been removed again, I'm adding an 'unresolved' consensus tag to this section. Further views, and 'delete' 'keep' comments would be useful. Sjgknight (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've reinstated Hindley again. There appears to be little reason for retaining the removal by an anonymous editor. I've also taken the opportunity to change the description from 'serial killer' to 'convicted prisoner', which may help put this matter to rest. An OU student's classification as a prisoner seems rather more relevant as an example of the university's outreach work, rather than the specific crimes of any particular student-prisoner. Hope this helps! jxm (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps editing the description is the way to go (although many of them have little description), but if so, the reason it's notable is that the degree was completed from prison, would "Hindley - who studied for her degree from prison" be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjgknight (talk • contribs) 15:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Convicted Prisoner" is a tautology - The OU cannot work with remand prisoners, we only work with those who are convicted. I currently work for the OU with students in prison - there are any number of members of the OU family who have graduated in prison serving life for murder - Hindley is high profile (though less so with the passage of time) and thus a good example of the work we do with this cohort Nogbad (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Extensive changes by anon editor

An IP editor made some extensive edits to the article recently. Could someone closer to the topic please review the resulting article to see if itt still makes sense? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Open University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Open University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Open University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925015629/http://www.ethioembassy.org.uk/Facts%20About%20Ethiopia/Biography%20Ato%20Meles%20Zenawi.htm to http://www.ethioembassy.org.uk/Facts%20About%20Ethiopia/Biography%20Ato%20Meles%20Zenawi.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources / article needs work

Much of the information that follows the lead is made up of primary sources. There are over 20 primary sources from Open University's main website making up the bulk of this article. It would be a good idea to back up some of these claims through secondary sources. Much of the Teaching Methods section has no sources at all. Source #42 is a note, not a source, this is misleading. --Sadsignal (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Move

I just moved this page by accident: I had the Special:MovePage page open for the main article, and had typed in "The Open University", and I wanted to check the move log for the page since I saw it had been moved before, but I apparently accidentally hit "Return" on my keyboard, thereby clicking the "move" button (which I didn't know I even had selected). That said I do think that since most reliable sources refer to this as "The Open University", this is a better title than "Open University". IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

So for penance, you get to go through every page that links to the old name and update. I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a reaction as it failed consensus in the past, see talk archive. Yes, the official name begins "The". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Issues with article

There are numerous issues with the article, some of which I shall attempt to fix but some of which require more research or some discussion before changing.

Notably, the section on the BCS accrediting the computing degree is at best in the wrong section, and it's questionable if it really needs including. Such is information that a prospectus would provide, or a search on the website would yield to any prospective students. As accreditation is up for periodical review, it's possible that such a reference may become out of date. Either way, having this in the opening piece of the article is unnecessary.

There are very few citations in the 'history' section, which is questionable given the numerous possible sources to cite.

It's also worth asking the question of whether a list of 'alumni' that only have honorary degrees is adding anything to the article, and likewise for a list of 'partner institutions'. Describing what is valuable about these partner institutions having a relationship with the OU might be worth including, but a list that is already present on their website doesn't seem to add much. Tomtiger11 (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I can give a citation in the history section; Tony Crosland's lack of enthusiasm for the OU was mentioned in Roy Hattersley's "Fifty Years On". Crosland, the Minister for Education at that time, was interested in what we would now call pre-school education and wanted the money for that instead.

Incidentally, Hattersley claims that the person who first came up with the idea of the OU was one Michael Young, Toby Young's father, who was one of Harold Wilson's advisors during his second term of office. 88.110.249.52 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Meltingpot (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Notable academics

I made some minor edits to the list, specifically, clarifying the academic subject descriptors. But the list is a bit odd - includes some who were associated with the OU but who seem to have been included because they are notable for other reasons (Gordon Brown) and some who don't have any publicly recorded association or academic role (Dimitra Fima? Nigel Warburton - association seems to be an OU PhD?). Does the list need more clarity of purpose? Nigel Cross (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

More than a month later no responses, so I propose some editing to remove those who are notable for other reasons (e.g. politicians, authors) but not for their academic careers. Nigel Cross (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

^ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/30/about_the_register/

[1] ttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/30/about_the_register/

[1]