In all subjects there are systems in place aiming to mitigate the impact of missed content through ‘not assessing’ those missed subjects and topics. A comforting thought to know we won’t have to teach ourselves complicated theories that barely make sense even with a lecturer, but can the impact of so much missed learning time really be taken into account effectively?
Whilst arguably this system might work for exams as certain missed topics can simply be excluded, this does little to combat the long-term impact on our education. For all subjects at higher education, learning has become not just about memorising facts, statistics and theories, but about their application and how they interact with other aspects of our learning. University education is about the development of our knowledge and thought processes, so when this development is interrupted, the long-term and short-term impact on each student across so many different subjects, is completely individual and diverse, and will go beyond just the effects on the grades of this semester. It really does beg the question of how the strikes’ impact can truly be measured fairly and effectively, which of course it can’t be.
We pay for education, our educators do not get paid, and we do not get our education
The only real solution is to not miss content in the first place, which would require our lecturers to continue working under unfair, unequal conditions. The university system does not work: we pay for education, our educators do not get paid, and we do not get our education, despite the efforts of ‘non-assessment’ - a vicious cycle of a broken system where no one wins.
