12 Private School vs University

If you intend to take a short-term course in Italy you have a smorgasbord of institutions from which to select your place of learning. Excluding American/British universities or language schools abroad, which are not what I consider bona fide Italian institutions, you can choose between an Italian private school and one of two universities. To get an idea of the number of private schools select the following link: http://www.it-schools.com/. The two universities are the University for Foreigners at Siena and at Perugia.

Price of Tuition
The following comparison of the cost of studying for a month at a private school and a university is based on Scuola Leonardo at Siena [2005] and the University for Foreigners at Perugia [2006]. Prices are in Euros.

Standard Course Euros
University of Perugia 300
Scuola Leonardo 630 [based on 4 weeks @ 560 + registration fee 70]

Contact Hours
Perugia Standard Course 20 hours First Level, 21hr Second, 23hr Third Level
Scuola Leonardo 20 hours per week [Minimum 2 weeks]

Maximum Number of Students
University of Perugia I don’t know the maximum number, but if the intensive course could have 17 then you can be sure that the standard course can have the same if not more.
Scuola Leonardo 12 students [declared maximum]

Intensive Course
University of Perugia 400
Scuola Leonardo 880 [at Rome/ and Florence]
1,260 [Intensive plus 5 hours/week private tuition]

Contact Hours
University of Perugia 27 hours/week
Scuola Leonardo 30 hours/week
25 hours + 5 private/week

Maximum Number of Students
University of Perugia 15 students and was 17
Scuola Leonardo 12 [declared maximum]

Food
University of Perugia 5 Euros buys you a good two-course meal at the canteen. One course [pasta] plus wine costs 2.30 Euros!
Scuola Leonardo No canteen

Lodgings
Depends on what you want: a studio, a room, or board and lodging, and I don’t think there is a major price differential between Siena and Perugia. On the other hand, somewhere like Rome or Milan might cost a lot more. In Perugia it cost me 600 Euros for a month for a studio [bedroom, living room with kitchenette, and bathroom]. In Siena, one month of homestay with a family with breakfast and dinner cost me 1000 Euros.

Summary
The university course is obviously a lot cheaper, but in return, you have larger classes. If you have read my previous blogs you will learn that you can also get some pretty shoddy treatment at the University for Foreigners at Perugia. If you are set on going to a university you might want to check out the one at Siena. But for all I know its Administration may be just as bad.

Although the cost of a standard course is more than twice the price, the total price is not that large to offset the advantage of a smaller class and a responsive system. The big difference is, of course, you can have cheap meals at the university canteen whenever you want to save. If cost is critically important, you can also cook at home if you have or share a kitchen.

If you want the advantages of a small class but don’t want to pay the exorbitant price for an intensive course at a private school, try taking a standard course and arranging a few private lessons per week.
In future I will select a private school because they are more responsive; at least –or at least I hope—I won’t have to deal with a diffident and anonymous administration as I had encountered at the University of Perugia for Foreigners.

11. Teachers at the Scuola Leonardo, Siena

For the four weeks at the Scuola Leonardo da Vinci at Siena I had two instructors: one for the first two weeks and another for the last two. Both instructors were approachable and helpful. I was told that this change of instructors was policy to ensure freshness and reflected the 2-week cycle of lessons. Certainly the instructors were as different as night and day. One was vibrant, organised, and fast-talking; the other seemed tired and not organised, and the content of his classes seemed to be plucked from thin air at the last moment. He was exhaustive to the point of boredom in his supply of examples, but he ran the in-class debates well.

The first instructor taught us the grammatical points for level 3 and usage. She also ran conversational excercises. Her classes were always interesting and fun, and she was always helpful. We had daily homework, which was corrected the next day, often communally. The school only asks for one hour of homework, which consists mainly of filling in the blanks in the textbook.

We also wrote essays, which the instructor corrected. In other words, the classes were interactive in that we were not just receiving data but had to put the information to use. She certainly stands high in my estimation. If I had any criticism it is that I would have liked the first 15 minutes of each day allotted to reviewing corrections as a method of consolidating what we had learnt. In fairness, the instructor was happy to answer any questions raised about the previous day’s work, but it was not a scheduled practice in the class.

I only wished we had had the same instructor for the second two weeks for these were less satisfying. The second instructor struck me as being someone who had taught the course once too often. The reason for this statement is that there was a distinct lack of organisation or purpose, and it appeared to me that he was often just "winging" it. The subject of the day appeared almost spontaneously, that is, randomly. Consequently, he would repeat a topic without even realising that he had already discussed it in a previous class. Then he proceeded to give us every example he could remember. The mental image I have is of someone cramming down our gullets a body of words and their usage. Mercifully, he also continued with our debates, which he ran well.

10. Teachers – University of Perugia for Foreigners

The second level intensive course I attended at the University for Foreigners at Perugia had four teachers: one for each type of class: language; grammar; pronunciation; and conversation.

Language Class
In this class our instructor kept telling us not to worry about the grammar but to think of using the language. It was not grammar for grammar’s sake but how the rule was used in the living language. I only wished she had stated this clearly in the beginning, or perhaps she did and I didn’t hear her or understand her. Anyway, I finally did grasp this point. We read and did exercises orally, and she would explain meanings and usage of words.

The instructor was vibrant and reminded me of my first instructor at the Scuola Leonardo. The former entertained us, especially with her graphical illustrations, and was responsive to questions. But there were elements that disturbed me. On the rare occasions she gave us homework or a test, they were never corrected the next or following days. At the Scuola, the instructor always oversaw communal correction of our homework, and if we had to write an essay or paragraph, she always gathered them in for correction. There was no essay or paragraph writing at the university.

Reading is important since it allows the instructor to hear the errors in our pronunciation. Instead of having each one read in turn, so that each of us received an equal opportunity to discover our errors, the instructor would ask, “who wants to read?” Naturally, those who felt more comfortable with their spoken Italian, or were more brazen, volunteered. More often than not it was the same group she would ask to read, while the others received short shrift. I discovered that if I were ever to read I would have to volunteer, which I did, but I don’t think the classroom should be reduced to a Darwinian struggle for reading opportunities.

For a long time I thought it was my shortcoming that I couldn’t always follow where the instructor was heading. I was enlightened when I discussed my problem with another student and realised I was not the only one who had trouble following her. She would move from one topic to another without announcing the shift. Even at the Scuola I encountered the same practice. Doubtless a minor fault, but nevertheless annoying, which a lesson in practical pedagogy might well correct. Perhaps an end-of-class student response sheet if not inspection by a senior colleague might improve the teaching skills, but that would be asking too much from an Administration that has a do-nothing attitude.

What was not so minor was this instructor’s tardiness and lack of respect for the schedule. As I explained in my previous blog, she rescheduled our classes and so disrupted the cohesion between language and grammar lessons. Further, by arbitrarily shifting our class hours at the last minute on one occasion, she was not giving the finger to the Administration but to us, because it showed that she really did not care for our welfare. Not all instructors were like her, but she was the instructor for the main body of lessons, so her failings had major repercussions for us. An on-the-ball Administration might have remedied the problem.

Grammar Class
The grammar instructor started behind the eight ball because we had already lost 6 hours of class. Whether it was her fault or the Administration’s I don’t know, but we were not in a receptive mood. She didn’t help matters by arriving a half-hour late on the first day and then, in the middle of the lesson, receive a call on her cell phone. Everything stopped while she had her conversation. Not a good start! But in fairness to her, on all other occasions she was on time and she never held another conversation during the lesson. She was also systematic so that everyone had to participate orally in the exercises. This may sound pedantic, but it allowed all of us to read aloud and demonstrate that we could do the drill. Furthermore, she gave us homework and she would review the work in class the next day. My regret is that she did not also teach the language class. We may not have had as entertaining a lesson, but it would have been highly instructive, as was her grammar lessons. The only drawback was that she was out of "synch" with the language section. Unfortunately, she too, chose to change our class time on one occasion. Nevertheless, I would still choose her any day for her systematic approach

Pronunciation Class
The faulty machinery aside, this was probably our most enjoyable class because of its nature and the instructor. Listening to songs and singing can hardly be called a laborious exercise, but she didn’t just make it fun, for she also taught us usage. Even though I struggled to understand the lyrics, I found it useful, and her sunny nature made it a pleasant experience.

Conversation Class
Although no fault can be found with the pronunciation instructor, I do believe that Catia Mugnani who ran the Conversation class was probably the most responsible of our instructors. She was punctual and she ran a tight ship. Given the size of the class, she had no other option. It would have been interesting to see what she could have done if the class had been smaller in size. Perhaps then we might have had “debates” in which everyone has an opportunity to participate. Given the large size, she was limited to dividing the class into groups and running quizzes, recipes, and explanations on how to go from point A to point B. The problem is that only one member in a group would give the oral presentation, although all were involved in the resolution. In other words, we “spoke” but often sotto voce as we tried to resolve the given problem.

Summary
All the instructors were good to excellent, and my quarrel is not with their knowledge of the subject. I think the language instructor could have been more systematic in her approach – more disciplined even at the sacrifice of entertainment, but she was still an interesting teacher. My complaint is the lack of respect for the students that she demonstrated by arriving late on too many occasions, or with the insouciance with which some showed by changing the time of our lessons. The worst case was the resulting rescheduling of our classes, leading to a disruption and loss of coherence between the language and the grammar classes. Some might counter that ours was an unfortunate example and should not be taken as representative of the one-month courses taught at the University of Perugia for Foreigners. To which I would answer as follows: ours was not the only class where an instructor did not turn up; and most importantly, even if my experience was an exception, it is one exception too many. I am so many thousand dollars out for a less than satisfying experience. When we buy a car, we expect it to work. If it doesn’t, we don’t expect the salesman to tell us that we were just unlucky in getting the one bad vehicle from the assembly line. We expect quality control, which is the responsibility of the Administration. Unfortunately, from our perspective, the Administration was non existent. A student I met on the excursion to Venice explained that a friend told him the quality of the courses had changed dramatically for the worse over the last year as a result of the Administration trying to bring in more students. I could well believe this.

9. University of Perugia – Course

As I stated in my previous blog, I could almost forgive the absenteeism, lateness, non-functioning equipment, superficial testing, and invisibility of a controlling hand at the University of Perugia for Foreigners if the course and the teachers were outstanding. Certainly, the conception of the course is excellent, and the university being a larger, government institution, offers the use of facilities not likely to be found in a small commercial school. Nevertheless, however well conceived a course may be, it must be judged by the way that it is realised, that is, by the way it is delivered.

The University of Perugia for Foreigners organises one-month courses in Italian language and culture. These courses are divided into two groups: Basic and Intensive. Each group has 5 levels (elementary, pre-intermediate, intermediate, advanced, superior). The intensive courses last a month and are offered from July through September. “They include additional class hours per week and limited enrolment to ensure a small number of students [my Italics] in each class”. Originally 17 students, my class dropped to 15 after the first week, which was much larger than my class at the Scuola Leonardo da Vinci at Siena. Certainly, 15 was too large a number for effective in-class conversation.

The second level intensive course in which I enrolled in September was divided into the following classes: Italian language; exercises in grammar; conversation; and exercises in phonetics for a total of 27 contact hours. The instructor originally scheduled to teach the exercises in grammar was to be the same person who taught the language section. If everything went according to plan, we would be steeped in the language and its usage, work on pronunciation, and we would be drilled in conversation. Even the structure of our timetable showed excellent forethought: 3 hours of language would be followed by 2 hours of grammar. Phonetics came midweek, and conversation at the end of the week, when, presumably, we could practise what we had learnt.

The core of the course was the language and grammar classes, and they were synchronised so that the grammatical points introduced in the language class would be followed by exercises in the grammar class. I assume that this was the reason for having the grammar follow right after the language and the same instructor for both language and grammar lessons. When our language instructor had the schedule changed to suit her, she broke the order of the lessons, and this breakage was exacerbated by having another instructor replace her for the grammar classes. The result was that there was no cohesion between the language and the grammar taught. Besides, the new instructor started after we had missed 6 hours, resulting in a gap between the grammar taught and the language class. I also doubt if there had been any communication between the two instructors as to what should be taught during the grammar lessons. At one point I even had to advise the grammar instructor that we had covered a certain topic in our language class, and so the following class she brought in exercises to cover that subject.

Unlike our original schedule, the new one was not conducive to learning. For example, we now had four consecutive late evenings, and some days we had classes in the late morning followed by a short break, and then back until 7 p.m. On Thursdays, we started at 8 a.m. and finished at 7 p.m. with a 1-hour lunch and a 2-hour break in the afternoon. Although in our original schedule Thursdays was also a long day of classes, it was mitigated by having the other 4 days with either the morning or afternoon off. The problem with the new schedule was that everything was dragged out over the whole day for too many days. By the third week it was hard to attend classes with any enthusiasm. The problem was also compounded by the cavalier attitude of some of the instructors with their persistent late attendance and insouciance with which they would change the time of our classes.

The only class I looked forward to was the phonetics class. It consisted of listening to songs, trying to understand the lyrics, and then singing them back to the instructor. Other times we had to repeat the words, and then listen to our pronunciation. The instructor and her assistant explained words we didn’t know and also gave us synonyms. The class took place in an audio lab, and was certainly enjoyable and helpful. The only hitch was that often more than half the machines were not functioning and we had to play musical chairs to find equipment that worked.

In the conversation class we worked in groups on a project such as explaining our favourite recipe or responding to quiz games. The size of the class precluded the one-to-one debates I had had at the Scuola Leonardo where the class was 10 or even less. Still, the fault was not the instructors but the size and disparate nature of the class. As I had explained in blog 5, the superficial testing given by the school resulted in a class of students with very mixed levels of expertise in Italian.

The University of Perugia offered more in its one-month course than the Scuola Leonardo did, but there were serious drawbacks. The university scored high for its audio exercises, but its conversation class, or even the conversation held in the language class, was hampered by the size of the class and the disparate levels of the individual students as the result of superficial testing. I certainly got more out of the one-to-one debates and the general fact that I had more time to speak at the Scuola. I don’t know what the Scuola does for its intensive course, and so it is unfair to compare the language and grammar offered by the university intensive course with that offered in a standard course at the Scuola. Besides, no matter how well conceived, the University failed miserably in delivering to us a well organised language and grammar section. Perhaps if we had had another instructor to teach both of them to us I might have had a more positive response, but I didn’t. To put it bluntly, my experience at the University of Perugia left me most dissatisfied. I shouldn’t have to attend an institution in trepidation of a crapshoot in which I may or may not have conscientious instructors who keep the schedule they are contracted to teach.

8. Scuola Leonardo: Course

I have left my discussion of courses and teachers until now because I wanted to discuss peripheral concerns that help to shape our experience at the school or university. However, since our main objective is to learn Italian, the quality of the courses and teachers must become our prime concern. Even at Perugia one could almost forgive the absenteeism, lateness, non-functioning equipment, and invisibility of a controlling hand if the course and the teachers were outstanding. And the same holds true for the Scuola Leonardo: no matter how wonderful its ambience and extracurriculum activities, the crunch must be the quality of the courses and the teachers. In this blog I will focus on the course at the Scuola.

The Scuola offers 6 levels of classes from beginner to diploma and one-to-one instruction at an extra cost. Each level is divided into 2 two-week sessions. Each level also has its own book prepared and issued by the Scuola. Grammatical topics are spread over the six levels, which means one learns something but not everything on a topic. For example, in level 3 [Intermediate] we learnt some of the rules for the subjunctive and only the present and past subjunctive.

I must admit that I benefited from this limited approach. If nothing else, they knocked into me when to use the present perfect [passato prossimo] and when the imperfect [imperfetto]. Previously I had confused these tenses with their English usage, but by the time I finished level 3 I certainly knew when to use them and the other grammatical topics that were taught. In short, Level 3 had a limited target, which it achieved, and I suspect the same holds true for each level.

At the end of two weeks we had a change of instructors, heralding another 2-week session. This approach allows for the entry of new students. In fact, the school is so programmed that after every two weeks lessons stop on the third Monday while the school vets the new students and places them. Teaching came to a stop while the testing went on and we waited for the entry of new students. In essence, that Monday was lost.

The time was lost because it could have been better used. For example, it could have been used for organised review or for whatever the instructor plans. The key words are organised and planned. The instructor showed us several short films made in Tuscany. There is nothing wrong with showing us films but it was obvious to me that they were just fillers to mark time. The fault probably lay with the new instructor, who lacked the vibrancy of his predecessor.

The main problem with the influx of new students at the end of two weeks is that on several occasions the class came to a grinding halt while he explained to them something that we had already covered. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with repetition and, in fact, reiteration of grammatical points is doubtless the best way to assimilate them. However, these were not planned revisions, and the class would have to stop its discussion in mid stream while an earlier grammatical point was explained. Not only does this become tedious but it is also confusing because our focus shifts from a half-discussed topic to another. In fact, we spent four out of the five days of the third week backtracking.

The second two-week session focused on word usage and I think it fair to say that most of us were bored. He was certainly exhaustive in giving us every possible example of the topic being discussed. This was too pedestrian, for he might just as well have given out a handout.

Besides teaching us grammar and language, the instructors also made us speak in each lesson. We either spoke to the teacher or to another student. As the class was only about 10 students we had more opportunity to speak than at the University of Perugia where the class had 15 students. We could have one to one “debates”, which was highly beneficial and certainly amusing. We also had one afternoon where a professional actor and teacher gave us an afternoon of pronunciation in which we had to act out the sounds. It was hilarious and highly educative, and it remains a high point for me. We also had optional lectures both in and out of class, where the guide was one of the instructors, and this gave us an opportunity to listen to someone speak and converse with at a pace that we could understand. It is certainly true that at the Scuola teaching was not just one channel -- in the classroom-- but multi channel, often without us realising that we were being taught.

What the Scuola offered they did well: a narrow focus on a set of grammatical rules, which were hammered in durring the two-week session. I just wish that they would offer a seventh level or class which would be a catchall for students like myself who have a fair to good knowledge of the grammar but cannot speak the language. The rules may not be at our fingertips, but we have studied them. I see such a class as repetitive but not repeatable. Students could take this course as many times as they want, but the topics would not be necessarily repeated because they would emerge from the conversation. The emphasis would be on conversation, but as grammatical errors are made, they get discussed, or serve as prompts for grammatical topics, which are discussed fully. Such a class would be more intensive than the six levels, and for those who are not prepared to put in the extra work, they can slide into one of the six levels.

7. Administration at a Small Commercial School

Since there are only two Italian universities that sponsor one-month courses in Italian, my comments about the University for Foreigners at Perugia probably have more significance. On the other hand, I have -- at least so far -- only attended one commercial school -- the Scuola Leonardo da Vinci in Siena. There are many commercial schools – a quick count from It-Schools.com showed close to 150 and the number seems to be growing all the time. Schools also vary in size, and larger ones, or those in larger cities, may have more or different problems. Or they may not. Despite the maxim that “one swallow does not a Spring make,” I shall still offer my observations based on my limited experience.

The Scuola Leonardo in Siena occupies one floor in a building. This floor has 4 to 6 classrooms – the exact number escapes me now— plus a front office and office for the instructors. There was no need for an orientation because all the classes were held in one building on one floor. But at least they made a gesture at welcoming the new students by having a little reception. Throughout our stay we were also given tours of interesting historical sites in Siena.

The school seemed to be administered by one person, who also oversaw the placement test, which every incoming student had to take. It was a much better test than the one given by the University for Foreigners at Perugia because it examined us for grammar, writing, comprehension, and speaking. It didn’t take her long to recognise that my knowledge of Italian was a jumble – I knew parts of grammar that were considered “advanced” but didn’t know other parts that I should have. If I remember correctly, she interviewed me after the written section to see if I could speak. Then she gave her verdict, with which I concurred. She said that she would start me off in the intermediate level [level 3] and then we would meet again after two weeks, which would be midway through my stay, and we could decide if things were too easy for me or not. As far as I was concerned, she was batting a 100.

The problem was that there was no follow-up after two weeks, which was disappointing as I did find the course on the easy side. I had no objections to remaining where I was if we had discussed the situation as promised. I got the distinct impression that she spent time at the beginning of the course to place a student but then failed to meet with and review the student’s progress. The administrator or teachers should not interpret silence as an indication that the student is happy with the class or level of learning. Most students are too polite to object. If there had been periodical reviews I think the Scuola Leonardo at Siena would have risen that much higher in my estimation.

Compared to the anonymous Administration at the University of Perugia for Foreigners –the administrator at the Scuola was certainly hands on. At least we knew who she was and could speak to her. More importantly, the role played by the secretaries at the Scuola was so much more personal and helpful. They knew what was going on, and so could give help when requested, and one even went out of her way to help in booking a hotel for me in Florence and trying to reserve a ticket for the Uffizi. I certainly left having had a good experience. Any flaws were minor, which if attended to, would place the school even higher up my scale of satisfaction.

On our last day we were given a sheet to fill up concerning our experience at the school, but it was so slanted that it would be unavoidable not to give a positive response – not that I would not have. In fact, I wrote a five page response [at home], which I handed in but I think I was barking in the wind as the administrator was not really interested in suggestions!

6. Perugia: Lack of Interest or Poor Management (2)

At the University of Perugia for Foreigners, indifference to the students’ interest resulted in the Administration’s failure to oversee the classes. For example, in another class, the instructor had taken ill and had not appeared for several days, but no one from Administration seemed to know or cared. The class had to send a delegation to apprise the secretary that their instructor had not been turning up. I know about their predicament because our delegation met theirs in the secretary’s office when we went to complain about not having an instructor appear for two days. Who was in charge?

Our problem started with a change in our schedule. We had 27 contact hours but spread out so that we had mainly morning classes with one long day on Thursday ending at 7 p.m. Tuesday we had mornings free and classes in the afternoon ending at 7 p.m. I do believe that this schedule reflected a planning decision to ensure that we had some free time. We could participate in activities or even take a bus ride to explore neighbouring towns. More importantly, we could attend the film that the university sponsored each Friday, thus allowing us to develop our comprehension skills. But then our language instructor announced that the given schedule did not agree with her and that she had so advised the university in August. So our schedule was changed to suit her, and we ended up with one that gave us afternoon classes every afternoon with classes ending at 7 p.m. from Tuesday to Friday. Gone was any chance of participating in any kind of activity, whether film or excursion. With our new schedule, the only time for excursions was the weekend, when buses were infrequent.

If I were studying with a famous professor who is juggling research, administration, and public lectures, I could well understand if he needed to change the schedule. I would not mind the inconvenience just to have the opportunity of studying with him. But at Perugia the instructors are neither famous nor professors, and not even permanent staff. They are contract workers drawn from a very large pool because Perugia is the centre for marking Italian language and culture exams for the whole country. Frankly, if the schedule did not suit her, the Administration could easily have found another instructor. She should not be dictating to the Administration and making us adapt to her schedule. The university had an obligation not only to see that we were taught but that we were not made servants to the scheduling whims of the instructor. The only reason she succeeded in having the hours changed was that there was no one in control. Try telling the chairman of the English department at a North American university that you, a sessional appointee, can’t teach the given schedule. I’m sure the response would be that there are others who could.

Not only did the instructor have our schedule changed, she also could not teach all the hours and so had asked for another instructor to take over the teaching of grammar. She claimed that she had given the Administration ample warning and had been told that all was in control. No instructor appeared for two days, and so we lost 6 hours of class time. Finally, in frustration a group of us went to speak to the Secretary. She told us that organising the instructors was not her provenance and that we should speak to the Secretary of Teaching. This lady in turn told us that she was "just a secretary" and that she could do nothing! So we marched into the President’s Office. We explained our predicament to the secretary who met us. She spoke to another secretary deeper in the office. She in turn spoke to us and then walked into the inner sanctum to speak to the President. He -- or she for all I know -- NEVER came out to speak to us. To this day I don’t know who it is. I think it is a Professor Roberto Fedi but it may have been Frankenstein. I will call him "IT" since I don’t know if the President is a male or female. The secretary came out and said that we would have an instructor for the next class, our 6 hours would be made up, and our schedule would be changed. We did get a new instructor, who arrived half an hour late; we NEVER got the 6 hours made up; and we certainly did NOT get our schedule changed. And NEVER did President "IT" or a deputy come to our classes to check if our concerns were met.

6 hours was not the only amount of classroom time we lost. Instructors would often arrive a half-hour late, and the excuse of heavy traffic paled through repetition. As someone said to me, they should know the pattern of traffic, and what is to stop them leaving earlier from home? On the other hand, other instructors were always on time, and one in particular I would like to mention by name, Catia Mugnani our conversation instructor who was always punctual and ran a tight ship. Unfortunately, others were a little too cavalier with our time.

On separate occasions two instructors announced to us that they could not teach us the following day at the given class hour because they had other commitments, and we would have to change our schedule. Their absence was definitely not due to any major domestic crisis like a death or we would have heard about it. One made up the hours on the very last day when half the class was missing. Well, excuse me, but my understanding is that instructors are contracted to teach certain classes at specific hours. They represent the university and have to fulfil its contract with us, the students. We had travelled a long distance at a large expense, and since we were there for a brief period, time was of the essence. We too had a life outside the classroom, and we certainly didn’t want to be treated so cavalierly. If the Administration had been conscientious in its duty it would have overseen the instructors, and made it clear to them that changing the schedule even temporarily was unacceptable.

The Administration’s indifference was also manifested by the state of disrepair of the recording machines we used. If President “IT” had made even a modicum of effort he would have discovered that half the recording machines – sometimes even more than half – were not functioning. Each time we went to the audio-visual room, it became a game of musical chairs to find a recording machine that worked. And this happened for the whole month. Where were the Service Technicians and why were the machines allowed to decay to this point that it became a distraction to the class? To me, the state of disrepair of the machines was symptomatic of the indifference that characterised the attitude of the Administration to the students studying at the University for Foreigners at Perugia in September. This institution’s boast that it has “a long and illustrious reputation” rings hollow in my ears.

5. Perugia: No Orientation and Poor Testing (1)

If the University of Perugia for Foreigners left an indelible impression on me it is that of diffidence on the part of the Administration. Out of charity, we might say the administrators demonstrated poor management skills. In truth, they demonstrated a remarkable degree of indifference to the concerns or interest of the students. An early example of such indifference can be found in the absence of an orientation programme and in the type of entrance test that was an insult to the idea of conscientious testing.

When I corresponded with the university I dealt with the “Office of Welcome” [Ufficio Accoglienza], but there certainly was no welcoming group when I arrived on campus! Now, I’m not expecting a brass band and a cheering group, but I do expect to have some kind of orientation. It’s not that the Administration does not hold such events, because I noticed that the university was advertising orientation programmes for incoming Italian students when their term started in October. What makes the administrators think that foreigners attending a foreign institution in a strange city would not require some kind of orientation? Classes were not localised to a single central building but held in several buildings separated by a good 10 minutes walk and located on different levels of the Perugian plateau. Instead, we were left to discover for ourselves the city and the university and to find our own way to the various buildings.

Lack of an orientation programme may be trivial in the grand scheme of things, but how do we explain the poor quality of the testing given by the university? Every student had to take a placement test so that the university could evaluate our knowledge of Italian. The “test” consisted of multiple-choice answers to questions on certain passages. Like children who grow up playing computer games, those who grow up with multiple choice tests have an adeptness that others lack. More importantly, multiple choice is hardly appropriate for a course in language. Since the course stressed language, grammar, comprehension, and speaking, the test should check for all these areas instead of just comprehension.

As a result of this superficial testing, our class of 17 was divided into those who could speak but knew no to little grammar, and those who knew their grammar but were weak on comprehension and speaking. Half the class was bored when grammar was taught while the other half dominated when asked to read or speak. If the university had been serious about placing us in our correct levels, the test would have included grammar, comprehension, and an oral test. Anyone who has taught English as a Second Language knows that an experienced teacher can readily identify a student’s weaknesses from reading a brief paragraph and holding an even briefer interview.

The excuse that the large number of entering students -- there were multiple classes --precludes the more thorough testing recommended by me is a lame excuse. First, as I have pointed out, it does not require that much time to test a student for all three areas. Besides, what is more important – placing the student in the correct level or the markers’ convenience? Many of us registered for the course months before the classes started. For example, I registered in May. Early registration gave the university ample time to schedule the tests at set times for registered students with a catchall for late comers. This approach would have given the testers time for a more thorough testing to ensure that students were placed correctly. Instead, those responsible opted for a conveniently superficial method of testing that was inherently inaccurate.

The conclusion is that those who ran the test were too lazy to administer one that could give them a more accurate picture of the student’s ability. Or else it really did not matter, just as it did not matter to the Administration that there was no orientation programme. I suggest that the reason for this indifference is that the university is sitting on its reputation quite content to rake in the euros from those of us who sign up for their one-month course. In short, we were just so many bodies bringing in extra euros.

4. University of Perugia for Foreigners: Cultural Activities

The other type of institution a foreign student could attend for a short course is a University for Foreigners [Università per Stranieri]. There are two such universities: one is located in Perugia and the other in Siena. I know nothing about the Foreigners’ University at Siena but I have just attended the University of Perugia for Foreigners (Università per Stranieri di Perugia. It boasts a long and illustrious reputation as the oldest Italian institution involved in teaching and research activities as well as in the diffusion of Italian language and civilisation. Unfortunately for those of us who attended the one-month course, a discrepancy existed between reputation and reality.

To put it bluntly, the University of Perugia for Foreigners did NOTHING in terms of extra-curriculum activities for those of us who attended the one-month intensive language course in September this year [2006]. I believe the same held true for students taking other levels of this one-month course, although I had heard that an instructor in one of the other classes did take her students on a tour of Perugia, but this did not seem to be policy. The university claims to organise weekend trips to “the most important cities and guided visits to historical and artistic monuments of Perugia and Umbria” [pg. 25 of the brochure Italian Language and Culture Courses]. It may do so at other times of the year for those in the Erasmus programme, but there were certainly no guided visits to any site in Perugia or Umbria for those of us who attended in September. One of our instructors took pity on us after we had complained about the diffident treatment we had received, and she was kind enough to give us a quick impromptu tour of the Palazzo Gollanga [the main building] on our last day. Otherwise, there were no organised “cultural activities”.

It seems that the university contracts out to two agencies, one of which is Atena. As the university-approved agency, Atena books accommodation for students and sponsors tours of Perugia and dinners at local restaurants. When I enquired from Canada about these activities I was told by Atena that the university also sponsored excursions. In fact, the university has a Travel Agency organise weekend trips. During September none of these excursions was within Umbria, probably because there was little profit in such short tours. I can’t blame a commercial Travel Agency for wanting to maximise its revenue by arranging long-distance trips, and certainly the excursion to Venice was excellent. At 104 euros [± $150 US] it was well worth the price for those who could afford it. Obviously not too many students could, because the bus was far from full. In fact, many of the occupants were not students.

If there were cultural events sponsored by Atena or by any other agency for those of us attending the one-month course in September, the university certainly did not publicise them either by posters or announcements in the classroom. The only announcement concerning the weekend excursions was a notice among other notices on a board as one approached the stairs of Palazzo Gollanga. No notices were displayed in the other buildings where classes also took place. This would have been important because not all students used the Atena or even knew of its existence. In fact, none of us knew anything of what Atena was offering – if it did offer anything in September – and I doubt if my classmates even knew about the excursions run by the Travel Agency if I had not mentioned them. There seemed to be a total disconnect between the two agencies and the university. One would think that if the Administration were really interested in offering cultural activities it would have co-ordinated the offerings of the two agencies and promoted them to the students by class announcements. Instead it did NOTHING.

I believe that the reason for this lack of interest on the part of the Administration is that the university’s main focus is the Erasmus programme. In this programme, European students take the same university courses as their Italian counterpart. The one-month courses help prepare students to fit into the student body, and I believe that those Erasmus students studying with us did indeed have activities arranged for them. However, most of the people in my class were not in the Erasmus programme, but were older, “mature” students. I believe that the Administration saw us as financial fodder to service a cash-strapped university. Such an attitude explains the total lack of interest the Administration showed in the non-Erasmus students both in terms of co-ordinating cultural activities and in overseeing our instruction in the classroom – which I shall describe in a future blog.