4,284 of reviews mentioning "Marketing"

The content that is provided is excellent, what I specifically enjoy is the real life examples that are added. Which show perfectly just how companies perform in real life, instead of just the theory, something that is quite engaging most of the time, and with teachers that truly seem to care, it certainly adds to the motivation of learning and writing the exercises. A small note of criticism, which isn't a large influence, is classes lasting till 5, and with me not living on campus it makes me return quite late, although with this only being 1 day each week, it is very much manageable.

The course has lots of variety as I'm doing a mixed course, and the lecturers are very supportive and make sure we understand what we're learning. The lessons are interactive and the modules also allow more group tasks to develop our team working skills

The university is all in one place which is great, because its easy to go from building to building for each subject. The campus has lots of options for food e.g. Vegan options on campus as well as lots of places to sit. My favourite part of the campus is the catalyst (library) it's so cozy and an ideal place to study.

Grading is bad.

The lectures are always friendly and support the students with any issues or concerns. The classes are always interesting as the lectures bring their own experiences to the class and with these I can relate to the topic and understand the theory better. They offer many paid internship opportunities, but less workplacements during the course. Due to Covid most of the classes are blended, but still offer enough opportunities to speak with the lecturer in person after seminars.

Stirling has a great history and the students can visit many historical places as well as museums. Public transport is great within stirling and it is easy to travel to Glasgow and Edinburgh via train. There are a lot of bars and entertainment opportunities around town. The students are also able to find great part-time jobs in many different industries around the city.

Due to covid a lot of the course has been taught online in recent months. However the content is always very good, applicable to assignments and the subject areas, and teaching staff are always available to assist with any questions. Their abundance of knowledge is ridiculously underrated, and no matter how difficult a question may seem to us, their industry experience and knowledge mean that a vast array of areas in the food industry are covered, meaning we have access to more than enough help and knowledge.

My course was very dynamic and the structure is clear and fun enough to absorb the contents. We have talented lecturers there, and they are even more experienced than I had thought before I enrolled. They are connected to universities all around the world, which definitely opened a brand new world for myself. I see De Montfort as a critical starting point of my career and life in the UK. I couldn't name any negative sides about my course, just because everything is perfect if you genuinely engage with people there.

Great access to facilities, workshops, computer rooms, study space. Clean facilities and vending machines etc.

The Humanitarian Engineering department provided excellent support, the staff are passionate about student wellbeing and there is an imperfect feedback mechanism to communicate about workload etc. Comments we made seem to have been taken on board by the course which is great, which again reflects their passion for looking after the students. Georgia and Victoria are both excellent in these regards.

Good: - 9-5, 5 day module structure with 2 weeks between modules were useful as teaching builds off of the previous day's study, and focus is on one module at a time. Following this, 1 piece of coursework is the student's focus for 2 weeks until the next module. - Lecturers did really well to adapt during COVID-19. Half of my course was delivered conventionally, in person and the other half online through. - Although the course prioritised and normalised a eurocentric, free-market, World Bank guided philosophy of humanitarianism in the curriculum, critiques were not penalised in marking. Student engagement was encouraged and lecturers were open to challenge. This gave me the confidence to critique the course curriculum in my essays. I would say that I gained most from self-study on topics and essay writing opportunities, leading me to gain clarity on my future. Bad: - The course felt like more of an extended training seminar for work in the development industry than a high-level academic experience. This was felt strongly in the curriculum, which didn't stray much from dominant World Bank ideas of humanitarianism as a business model and commodity, failing to provide critical insight or root cause analyses of humanitarian or environmental issues. Sometimes it was hinted at, but this was more through rare personal insights of individual lecturers. An example of how this affected learning: one task asked how we'd approach a dam-building project for our engineering firm. Most of us said we wouldn't build it, based on community displacement and environmental impact, but the course demanded we stick to the narrow task, deflating the impetus in the room and becoming a tick box exercise). The course debated ethics narrowly, which didn't challenge an engineer think outside the box of capitalist development tendencies. - Due to the above, it was not a surprise that anti-colonial thought was conspicuously absent from the course. In one lecture, knowledge that should be commonplace and nominal in a course like this had to be forced into the discourse by myself and another Indian student. By its subject content, the curriculum presents anti-colonial histories of many nations as alternative and other, and displayed a eurocentricity which I was not alone in noticing. Therefore, whilst the pedagogies of the course are vibrant and engaging, the academic content and critical thought was underwhelming compared to how it was presented in the course website and marketing material. - One of the co-directors of the course, who is also a lecturer, really brings down the quality of education, engagement and professionalism on the course. The Renewable Energy module (which is core and mandatory) content felt lazily curated and forced in. Additionally, the lecturer re-used other module briefings with a few words changed here and there, often with spelling mistakes. The same lecturer also marked coursework against ad-hoc, made up briefings rather than those provided, leading to inconsistent marking between students and lazy feedback. This was brought up by students through our representatives. Despite multiple requests for discussion on feedback, I waited over 2 months for a single, bedgrudging reply, received only at the point of threatening complaint, with no apology and an arrogant attitude. Complaints were made by other students for more serious matters. An overall distaste for student engagement and a lack of passion for teaching the course was displayed. This lax, haphazard attitude belies the £9000+ fee of a course which is clearly a labour of love for other members of staff, who were excellent. We all avoided that professor's dissertation projects based on their behaviour, not academic choice, which shouldn't be the case - The course unfortunately doesn't escape the overworking common in education nowadays - in a few cases coursework feedback exposed the skim-reading of essays. I was glad to get a 1st overall but this may have hurt others.

Career seeking services and opportunities are always being sent to me by the department, even after I have graduated. Career service has been offered to me more than once, which I have decided to make use of. The course has helped me to decide what I want to do in the future.

No

All closed since Covid. No acknowledgement from the university that student's have paid for access to these facilities and deserve rebate.

Mental health support is limited to occasional emails on "World Mental Health Day". Reality is that support is way over-subscribed, and limited to one or two conversational sessions per student.

TL:DR, if you want to do a research master's, don't pay over the odd for this one. This Cabot Institute MScR course was promoted heavily on the basis that it offered a bespoke training experience to students and would allow engagement and opportunities that would not otherwise be replicable in a regular school based MScR. In reality, there has been no bespoke training, no framework or groundwork to facilitate students building a training plan, and the Institute has now removed the word 'bespoke' from its course webpage. My experience has been that this is a “cash cow” course which exploits the reputation of the Cabot Institute and uses spurious marketing to entice prospective students into paying a premium fee, but in fact offers no substance or support to justify that premium. From the Cabot Institute internal sharepoint: “The Institute is pursuing this Masters [sic] for the following main reasons: … to use the Institute’s strong brand to drive postgraduate student recruitment to the University”

No

Course is great and lecturers are very helpful

15

Yes

Library is well stocked and very comfortable for study.

My personal tutorhas been the most helpful.

Tutors are passionate and thorough in teaching.

15

Yes