Is this the university you applied for?
Having read the prospectus, chosen York and got the grades, the next generation of students have finally made it onto campus. But will the University live up to all their expectations? Lauren Carter reveals the truth behind the prospectus’ glossy pages, where descriptions don’t quite match the reality
On Sunday night in the campus bars, one question that could be repeatedly overheard in the awkward small talk between freshers was ‘why York?’ Not only is this a perfect way to start up conversation and break the ice, it’s also quite a reasonable question considering most students who are offered a place have the A Levels to get in anywhere.
Whilst York’s academic reputation speaks for itself, always residing somewhere in the top ten and boasting top ratings for its departments, it doesn’t exactly stand out for student facilities. This years’ Students Union President, Micky Armstrong, was elected on his campaign to improve woeful campus services, while most college JCRCs are shouting for basic provisions enjoyed at other universities.
However, despite the growing discontent, it seems like the University have finally noticed what students want or, at least, what helps to sell the campus. A glimpse through the University undergraduate prospectus promises many of the treasures that students have been campaigning for for years, from 24 hour security in the colleges to improved bar and catering services.
However, unfortunately for the new first years, these facilities only exist on paper. So, whilst the prospectus is intended to “answer your questions about the University, its courses, facilities and environment”, its content seems to raise more questions than it answers and could well leave many freshers confused about why they really did chose York.
Accommodation is vital to many students’ choice of university and first impressions can help sway their decision. The University were well aware of this when designing the prospectus and, rather than featuring the unsightly undergraduate accommodation, have chosen to picture the more scenic Wentworth, despite being a graduate college.
And, just in case a picture doesn’t tell a thousand words, the prospectus’ descriptions add further glamour to the accommodation. On two occasions, the prospectus claims that all colleges provide students with a common room in which to socialise and meet friends. According to one passage, “colleges provide an environment where it is easy to meet people and make friends, enabling you to settle quickly into your studies and social activities.” Unfortunately for Halifax students, however, there is no common room and its bar with a capacity of under 200 doesn’t accommodate the 900 students resident in the College.
James Flinders, Chair of the Halifax committee was bemused by the prospectus’ claims. He revealed the College had been campaigning for a common room since it was first formed and has still never been provided with one by the University: “Having a non-alcoholic social space would allow the hundreds of Halifaxers who don’t drink, for cultural or religious reasons, to fully take part in College activities without having to go into a bar.” However, even the College bar cannot be enjoyed by the majority of Halifax students with such a small capacity. Nonetheless, this does not deter the University who describe the Halifax bar (incidentally the smallest bar on campus) as “a student centre”, complete with a café, bar, common room and meeting room. The only thing they neglect to mention is that the café, bar, common room and meeting room are actually all one room, and a small room at that.
Similarly, the facilities in James College have been exaggerated, and some even appear to have been invented. The prospectus claims the College has a bar, catering service and a porters lodge, all features which the James JCRC have been campaigning unsuccessfully about for years. Second year James student Anna Sims was suprised at how the College was portrayed in the prospectus: “It’s disgusting, people shouldn’t be told there’s facilities where there’s not. It’s giving people the wrong vision of the university life they’re coming to. People might choose to come here because of the information given”
Despite later acknowledging the lack of facilities in James, and revealing that it makes use of other colleges’ services, the University have accepted their claims are misleading. Admissions Officer, Connie Cullen, responsible for producing the undergraduate prospectus, told us: “I agree that although we made a specific comment about James it could be thought that James has its own bar, too”.
Nonetheless, even the campus bars that do exist are not necessarily open to students. The University’s continued refurbishment of venues means that at least one bar is closed every term, and the Roger Kirk bar is not opened during term time at all. Instead, it’s only used by conference guests during the vacation, a fact which the University fails to mention in the prospectus.
Catering facilities are also given a more than generous review by the University. The prospectus assures students that all colleges provide catering facilities, covering three meals a day, seven days a week. It may therefore come as a surprise to freshers when they discover that the only college on campus that caters for three meals a day is Derwent, which is shut at weekends and is incidentally closed for the rest of the term for refurbishment. In actual fact, campus’ catering facilities are being scaled down and Langwith College canteen, one of the largest eateries on campus, has recently turned into a daytime snack bar, no longer serving hot meals in the evening. As for the weekend, only three venues are open, covering just one meal each.
One of the more concerning claims in the prospectus is the promise of “an instant and accessible source of help which is available around the clock” in the colleges. Connie Cullen explained that this referred to the network of tutors, deans and provosts within each college, but unfortuantely these are only ever contactable during office hours. Security is also not available around the clock in all colleges; 24 hour portering is only available in certain accommodation, and Vanbrugh, Fairfax House, Holgate’s Hall and the Derwent and Langwith extension blocks do not have on-site security at night time. SU President, Micky Armstrong, was particularly shocked by this claim in the prospectus: “How many years have we been arguing for 24 hour portering? It’s been one of the most important issues for students and has lead to continuous protests. I always think it needs to be provided in the colleges, but especially now it’s been advertised to new students.”
And, whether or not the prospectus is intentionally misleading, it is unquestionably giving prospective students the wrong impression of what York has to offer. Third year Mathematics student, Steph Thompson, who helped on a recent open day for the University explained: “It was bizarre how many people approached me to ask for directions to something that didn’t exist. When I explained that there was no such thing, they kept saying they’d seen it in the prospectus.”
Much of the material used in the prospectus is also extremely dated, despite being reprinted every year. Sixty-one students are quoted for their opinions on the facilities and their course, yet only ten of these were still at University when the prospectus was printed. The majority of quotes are at least three years out of date and, considering the speed at which facilities and courses are changing, it is questionable how representative their views are of the current campus. One of the students quoted in the prospectus also does not seem to have attended York; Psychology student Shelly Morris is featured in the prospectus yet staff in the Psychology department have confirmed that they have no record of her. Several unattributed quotes have also made it difficult to ascertain how accurate the material used in the prospectus is.
Since presenting the Admissions Office with these findings, Connie Cullen has reassured Nouse: “…we don’t ever want the prospectus to be confusing so I’ll suggest that the paragraphs you have drawn my attention to should be revised for future years. Thank you for bringing them to my attention.”
Nevertheless, it is possible that these errors are a vital step forward in the campaign for better facilities. SU President, Micky Armstrong, confided: “It’s certainly a stepping stone to my campaign for better services. This is a major step – if the University promises it than they’re going to have to deliver.” Perhaps next years’ freshers might get the facilities they’re promised after all.
Loading ...
