Forcing students to attend lectures in person creates barriers. Photo / 123rf
Forcing students to attend lectures in person creates barriers. Photo / 123rf
OPINION
Last year, Victoria University of Wellington announced all second-year law students would have to attend lectures in person. Students who could not attend lectures could apply for hardship grants to access lecture recordings.
The decision had a mixed response. Reading the social media comments, it appeared students affected by this policy welcomed it. But others raised concerns about how not attending live lectures affects students’ learning.
Victoria University of Wellington. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Not all students come from wealthy families. Many cannot afford to be at university without taking on additional work to cover rent, bills, food, fees, technology and the many other costs that come with being alive and at university. Students are justified to prioritise work over lectures when there are clashes.
Some may argue students facing such hardship should seek hardship grants to access lectures. VUWSA president Jessica Ye labelled the hardship application process “bureaucratic”. It creates unnecessary and additional barriers for students who are already stretched thin and disproportionately disadvantages marginalised students.
For me, the primary consideration would not be whether a student suffers hardship - it would be whether the student is keeping on top of course work. If I were a lecturer, I would have no qualms about a student not attending a lecture so long as they made time to catch up.
It would be obstructive of me to withhold a recording, punishing a student who is ready and willing to catch up.
There may also be students who are not facing any hardship and attend lectures in person but require the lecture recordings anyway because they couldn’t note all the important parts during the live lecture. This is particularly the case for content-heavy lectures where lecturers race through the material or lectures in which lecturers do not use or share their slides.
Last year, Victoria University of Wellington announced all second-year law students would have to attend lectures in person.
Some students learn best by pausing the lecture recording every five minutes and noting everything a lecturer says.
There is a generation of people who enjoyed vibrant social lives at university. They may think not attending university means students are depriving themselves of that experience. However, with the rising cost of living, some students face the reality of choosing between feeding themselves and having a social life at university. I know I would rather eat alone than starve with an audience.
I am not saying there aren’t valid concerns about students not attending lectures in person. I understand the genuine concern about students not keeping up with lecture content. Watching lectures live is often the best way to keep on track. The snowball effect of not watching lectures for some students is debilitating. I also accept there are some activities a student may only benefit from if they participate in the live lecture.
Like with many things, we have to do a balancing exercise. The premise for requiring students to attend lectures is to ensure students are on top of lectures, but withholding lecture recordings creates additional barriers and is counterintuitive.
The academic board’s decision to repeal the university’s policy is an empathic, in-touch and progressive step. The insistence on universality in diverse populations has never worked. The academic board’s decision demonstrates the academic board has an appreciation that students have diverse learning needs and come from diverse backgrounds, mainly a wide range of socioeconomic communities.
