University of Warwick

I rate the experience at just above average.

Module structure, pedagogy, quick and effective COVID adaptation by the department, invitation to critique in essays, student engagement were all great points.

Academic value, creativity and breadth of the curriculum, eurocentricity, bad attitude of one co-director, lack of attention to reading student work were the bad points.

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

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.

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.