When the Dearing Report asserted that universities should "sustain a culture which demands disciplined thinking, encourages curiosity, challenges existing ideas and generates new ones", it was doing no more than formulating one aim and purpose of education which was both uncontroversial and widely-expressed. In order for universities to fulfil this aspect of their purpose, we need to adopt a critical stance with respect to our academic subjects, to society, and also to the norms of the University itself. Thus it is essential that the new lecturers' course encourages this critical attitude: any reinforcing of an uncritical acceptance of the status quo should be anathema.

What about unit "learning objectives"? The aims and objectives of university education as formulated by almost any serious author on the subject lay great emphasis on a range of transcendent qualities. See, for example, section 5.11 of the Dearing Report or consider this University's document Planning for 2000 in which we stated that "Any education system worthy of the name aims not just at the intellectual development of students, but also at their social and moral growth." (p. 14, § 4.2). Transcendent aims and objectives, such as these, should be implicit throughout the whole university curriculum. They cannot be expressed in the trite language of "unit learning objectives" with their vain hope that it will be possible to express in a few words "what the student should be able to do after completing the unit". The effect of current over-emphasis on "the role of Unit learning objectives and the need to align teaching and assessment with these" is to concentrate attention on lower, instrumental aims with the result that the higher transcendental aims are neglected, even forgotten.

The principle that "unit learning objectives [define] teaching and assessment " is also dangerous when it comes to mere instrumental aspects of education. Not knowing your academic discipline, I will have to illustrate what I mean with an example from my own. Look at the description for CHEY0001, Introduction to structure & bonding. Its Aims & Learning Objectives include "Draw radial and angular functions for s, p, d orbitals". Without looking at the lecture notes and past exam papers, this statement is inadequate, not because of fault on the part of those who wrote it, but from the fundamental limitation of such terse statements. They only become meaningful in the light of the lecture notes and past examination papers.

Consider p orbitals. Does the statement mean simply "draw two contiguous circles with a dot at their point of contact"? Alternatively, does it mean sketch a graph of the radial function (R) against distance from the nucleus? If so, what about angular functions? If a graph of the Q function is required, should it be in polar co-ordinates, Cartesian or both? Remember that these functions are three dimensional. The F function, strictly speaking, is complex when m is ±1: is the real representation acceptable? 3p, 4p, 5p etc functions are more complicated than those for 2p: are they required? The "Content" section of the unit description is of no help in answering these questions.

The "Content" section does, however, does include crystal field theory, which could not be guessed from looking at the Aims & Learning Objectives. Suppose the lecturer strayed into the distinct, but related, ligand field theory. Would this be illegitimate as it is not mentioned at all?

Unless the statements of unit learning objectives are treated as indicative, giving a flavour, rather than as if they were some sort of legal contract with the students, they are not only misleading, they are dangerous. Consider what use a narrow-minded quality inspector (of whom there are many) or a smart lawyer representing an aggrieved student could make of them. "Your unit assessment did not require all students to demonstrate their competence in all of the Aims & Learning Objectives, therefore you have failed to show that the students have achieved the all the learning objectives you have set out." "My client was able to draw simple s, p, and d orbital diagrams which satisfy the letter of your Aims & Learning Objectives, therefore it is unjust not to give him full marks for that part of the examination. Topic X was asked in the examination, but is not clearly and explicitly mentioned in the unit description. It is not stated as something that 'the student should be able to do after completing the unit'. That part of the examination must therefore be regarded as void."