The students in the course recently received their diagnoses for their specialist pathways. To allow the tutors time to assess the part one work, students engage in an extension project of their choice, typically aligning with the preferred pathway they plan to pursue. The goal is to enable more autonomous design decision-making. Each project within the various pathway areas should have had clear instructions and set aims for each day. On the first day of the extension project, I had to teach a group I’ve worked with previously. One pathway area dominates in popularity this year. However, I find its associated extension project to be poorly written and lacking sufficient learning guidance. 

I organised the students into groups based on their choice of extension project. Approximately eight students chose the project associated with the widely favoured pathway. During the first exercise, I asked them to decipher the project brief and identify the deliverables and expectations. After discussions and reading the brief together, no one understood the expectations. This raised questions about the appropriateness of such unclear instructions. Is it a deliberate strategy to disenfranchise students from the pathway? Why did the students find the brief exciting despite its opaque quality and the lack of proper learning support? 

Later, two students requested to leave to visit the CSM KX materials library, as suggested in the brief. I asked them to explain their rationale, and they believed they could gain firsthand experience of materials. Even though I made it clear that they are free to do what they deem best for them, I did encourage them to utilise our site’s resources, emphasising that any material can be valid depending on how it’s used. I also clarified that the material library is not necessarily where the “real” ideas happen, dispelling their perception. A sense of mistrust lingered among us. 

Frequently, I observe that the pathway in question and the associated discipline structure projects that avoid critical examination and possess questionable practices. The pathway also undermines the diagnostic learning achievements by dismissing Part One as “a waste of time, we can’t use any of it” and allegedly telling students to “forget part one; we’ll show you how to research, etc., how we want.” My perception of their course is essentially a preparatory program for a house style to progress to competitive undergraduate courses at CSM. The diagnostic process on the foundation is no longer suitable and cannot be followed as first envisioned. You cannot deny a student their first choice who may have travelled across the globe and paid £22,800, potentially being placed into an undesired pathway.