University of Hertfordshire reviews

In short: the university has the infrastructure and branding of a modern institution, but my experience was that the academic and administrative experience frequently failed to match it.

Course: BSc Computer Science (Artificial Intelligence)
Study period: 2023–2026

1. Halls and accommodation

My journey at this university started with moving into on-campus halls. At first, the room and flat seemed to be of a decent standard, and I initially had no major complaints about the physical condition of the accommodation.

That changed fairly quickly once everyone living in the flat made their own groups of friends and began regularly socialising and partying in the kitchen and individual rooms. The walls were extremely thin, making it difficult to study or even sleep properly in my own room whenever people were socialising nearby.

The bathroom facilities were another persistent issue. The toilet and shower were constantly clogging, and complaints to accommodation staff were, in my experience, frequently ignored or not properly resolved.

There were also regular problems with students smoking cannabis at night. Keeping the windows open was often impossible because of the smell entering the room.

The biggest issue, however, was the fire alarm situation. There were repeated fire alarms during the night, sometimes occurring on a seemingly daily basis. Having your sleep repeatedly interrupted by alarms, combined with noise from other students and thin walls, made the accommodation extremely difficult to live and study in.

Overall, the halls initially looked acceptable, but the actual living experience was substantially worse because of noise, maintenance problems, lack of effective enforcement, and poor responses to complaints.

2. First-year course structure and teaching

Many individual first-year modules were genuinely useful and interesting. The main problem was that they often felt completely disconnected from one another.

Rather than building a coherent progression of knowledge, the degree frequently felt like a collection of unrelated modules where students were expected to learn the surface-level concepts necessary to complete the next assessment.

For a university-level Computer Science degree, I expected considerably more depth and progression. There were topics where we were introduced to a concept, completed an assessment on it, and then effectively moved on without developing the knowledge into something substantially more advanced or practical.

The degree therefore often felt less like a structured development of computer science knowledge and more like completing a sequence of independent academic tasks.

3. Group projects

Group projects were among the most frustrating parts of the course.

In several cases, there was little meaningful structure or guidance. Students could essentially be told to "do something" and then receive a grade based on an outcome without sufficient guidance about what constituted a good project, how the work should be organised, or how the team was expected to operate.

This creates a particularly poor learning environment because group work should teach collaboration, software engineering practices, project management and technical communication. Instead, it often became a matter of trying to work out what the lecturer actually wanted while simultaneously dealing with unreliable group members. (Thanks to teachers like Andrew Pyper and Nathan Beka)

The grading could also feel arbitrary from a student's perspective because expectations were not always sufficiently explicit.

4. Academic integrity and use of AI

Another particularly frustrating aspect was the apparent inconsistency surrounding academic integrity.

There were situations where students used generative AI in coursework, while the resulting work could still receive better marks than work produced independently. From my perspective, this undermined confidence in the assessment process.

My issue is not simply that AI exists. It is that if students are assessed on their own ability to understand and produce work, the university needs a coherent policy and a meaningful way of enforcing its academic-integrity requirements.

When students perceive that using AI can produce a better result than actually learning the material, the assessment system creates exactly the wrong incentive.

5. Teaching staff and communication

One of the most persistent problems throughout the degree has been communication.

Emails can go unanswered for extended periods. When a response is eventually received, it can be extremely brief or vague and provide little practical guidance about what the student should actually do.

This becomes particularly problematic when students are asking about assessments, marking, coursework requirements or mistakes they have made. If the person responsible for teaching a subject cannot provide useful feedback in a reasonable timeframe, it becomes difficult to understand how students are supposed to improve or learn on their mistakes.

There were certainly lecturers who were much better than this. Felix Riegler and Daniel Polani stand out positively in my experience. They were willing to take the time to answer emails properly, and their teaching was considerably more engaging and useful. Their lectures felt like they were actually trying to communicate knowledge rather than simply getting through the scheduled material.

Another lecturer who deserves specific recognition is Alexander Shafarenko, who taught the *From Silicon to C* module. The module was extremely challenging and interesting, and although the majority of students agreed that it was difficult, I found that the difficulty was accompanied by useful feedback and a clear sense of progression. The automated assessments and coursework leaderboard made the module feel like a genuinely engaging competition; not simply to achieve a high mark, but to see who had actually taken the time to understand and learn the material rather than relying on AI to complete everything. This was one of the strongest examples I experienced of assessment encouraging genuine learning.

Unfortunately, these experiences felt like exceptions rather than the general standard.

6. Individual teaching experiences

6.1 Deepak Panday

I found the teaching difficult to follow, particularly because I struggled to understand his accent during lectures. The module structure also felt poorly organised, and I did not feel that the teaching provided enough useful understanding of the subject.

The problem was not simply the accent itself; the overall structure and delivery made it difficult to extract useful knowledge from the module.

Despite these criticisms, he was friendly and helpful when approached, particularly in providing feedback and reassessing marks where he identified that he had made mistakes.

6.2 Andrew Paper

I found the teaching difficult to follow and felt that the subject was not always conveyed clearly.

Email responses could take a long time, and when responses arrived, they often did not provide sufficiently useful feedback on how mistakes could be corrected or how work could be improved.

I also had concerns about the consistency and fairness of marking. My perception was that some students appeared to receive more favourable treatment, although I cannot establish the reasons for differences in treatment.

6.3 Alexandra Marczyk

The teaching felt extremely old-fashioned to me. The material and approach often seemed more representative of an older computing curriculum (such as from 2000s) than what I expected from a modern Computer Science degree.

I also experienced significant problems with communication. Emails were consistently unanswered, and I did not receive the level of feedback about marking that I would have expected.

I additionally had concerns about the fairness and consistency of marking in this module.

6.4 Nathan Beka

I found the approach to timetabling and team selection particularly rigid.

This was especially frustrating because the module itself did not feel sufficiently substantial to justify the level of inflexibility imposed around it. The impression was that students had to accommodate the organisation of the module rather than the module being organised around an effective learning experience.

7. Timetabling

The timetable can also be extremely inefficient.

It is possible to have one lecture at 9:00 in the morning and another at 17:00, leaving approximately eight hours between them.

For students commuting to university, this can effectively turn a relatively short amount of teaching into an entire day spent travelling to and waiting around on campus.

There was insufficient flexibility in scheduling, and I found this particularly frustrating when there was little useful reason to remain on campus for the intervening period.

8. Quality and relevance of teaching

The overall quality of education has frequently fallen below what I expected from a university-level Computer Science degree.

A significant amount of teaching felt outdated, disorganised or focused on getting students through an assessment rather than actually developing deep understanding.

There was often little sense of a coherent learning journey. Instead, it could feel like being given an assignment, figuring out what was required, submitting it, receiving a grade and then moving on to the next module.

That is particularly problematic in Computer Science because practical competence requires cumulative knowledge. Programming, algorithms, databases, software engineering, systems and other areas should reinforce each other over the course of the degree.

Instead, the progression often felt fragmented.

9. Administration and university support

The problems were not limited to teaching staff.

Communication with university administration could be similarly frustrating. Issues requiring a response could take a considerable amount of time, and students were often left having to chase departments themselves.

The general impression was that responsibility was distributed across numerous departments and systems, but there was insufficient ownership when something went wrong.

This becomes particularly frustrating when a student is already trying to deal with an academic or administrative problem and has to repeatedly contact different people simply to obtain an answer.

10. Final-year project and academic administration

The final-year project demonstrated some of the better and worse aspects of the university simultaneously.

On the positive side, I had a supervisor who was willing to communicate and provide support.

However, there were also administrative delays around the final project and its grading. The eventual delay was explained as being related to circumstances surrounding the assessment rather than being a problem with my individual work, but the communication surrounding such delays could have been much better.

For a final-year student approaching graduation, uncertainty over when a project will be graded can have practical consequences for graduation, employment applications and future planning.

11. Societies and student life

The society offering was another major disappointment.

A large proportion of the societies appeared to be centred around ethnic or cultural groups. Those societies are perfectly legitimate, but there was comparatively little that appealed to me from an academic, technical or hobby perspective.

There are also societies with extremely niche concepts, such as a pizza-eating society, while it was difficult to find active societies around technical interests that would actually help students develop hobbies or skills.

One particularly frustrating example was the Sim Racing Society.

The society had previously provided the ability to pre-book racing sessions, allowing students to use the rigs for substantially longer sessions. Following intervention from the university administration, the organisation of the sessions changed so that people had to arrive at the same time and use the rigs for much shorter periods, roughly 10–20 minutes rather than the previous 50 minutes to 1.5 hours.

After a few months of this organisation, the person responsible for running the society eventually stopped managing it, and the society effectively ceased operating.

Whatever the intentions behind the administrative changes were, the practical result was the loss of an active hobby society that students had previously been using.

That is particularly disappointing because societies should be one of the easiest ways for students to meet people and develop interests outside their degree.

12. Campus investment versus academic investment

The university places considerable emphasis on campus development, new buildings and renovations. The Spectra building is one example of this.

The campus can therefore give the impression of significant investment and development.

What I found much less convincing was the equivalent investment in the actual educational experience: teaching quality, academic staffing, course development, communication and student support.

A new building is visually obvious. Improving academic quality is much less visible, but ultimately much more important for a university.

From my experience, there was a noticeable discrepancy between the investment presented to students as evidence of university development and the quality of the educational experience they actually received.

13. Overall impression

After three years, my overall impression is that the university is much more concerned with operating and presenting itself as an academic institution than with delivering an excellent academic experience.

There are good lecturers, useful modules and some genuinely valuable experiences. I would not claim that absolutely everything was bad.

The problem is that the positive experiences were too inconsistent.

Too many modules felt disconnected and superficial. Too many emails went unanswered or received inadequate responses. Too many administrative processes required students to chase people themselves. Group projects lacked sufficient structure. Teaching quality varied enormously between lecturers. Student societies were not particularly compelling, and accommodation had significant practical problems.

For a Computer Science degree, I expected substantially more depth, coherence and practical development.

Instead, too much of the experience felt like completing assignments because they were required rather than being guided through a structured process of actually becoming a better computer scientist.

14. Final assessment

The biggest problem is not any individual lecturer, building, module or administrative incident in isolation. It is the cumulative effect.

A university can survive a bad module. It can survive a difficult lecturer. It can survive an occasional administrative mistake.

What becomes unacceptable is when these problems repeatedly occur across different parts of the institution and there is no obvious mechanism for resolving them.

The university has invested heavily in its physical campus and continues to advertise its development, but my experience was that the quality of teaching, communication and academic organisation did not consistently match that presentation.

After three years studying here, I would describe my experience as one where I had to take a substantial amount of responsibility for my own education simply because the university did not consistently provide the structure, depth or support I expected.

As a current Computer Science student at the University of Hertfordshire (2022-2025), I can honestly say that attending this institution has been the worst decision of my academic life. My experience here has been a mix of incompetence, mismanagement, and outright neglect for student well-being. I urge anyone considering enrolling here to think twice.
1)Administrative Nightmare and Lack of Support
The administration is utterly disorganized and heartless. It feels as if they view students as nothing more than cash cows, without a shred of care for their actual needs. The finance team is particularly appalling—there are endless horror stories about students being slapped with massive debts without proper communication, denied payment plans, and left scrambling for help. The administrative staff's attitude is cold, arrogant, and dismissive, treating students as though they are inconveniences. In any instance where assistance is required, be it financial or personal, the university's response is always slow, ineffective, and often rude.
2)Horrific Well-being and Support Services
The student support and well-being services are nothing short of a joke. They provide no meaningful assistance and even ignore basic issues that compromise students' mental health and safety. I've personally witnessed cases where students facing harassment received no real support, with staff refusing to take action despite being given clear evidence. The bureaucracy at this university is labyrinthine, and it seems designed to discourage students from seeking any help at all. There’s a complete disregard for the mental health of students, leaving those who struggle feeling isolated and helpless.
3)Poor Quality of Education & AI-Based Marking Issues
The quality of education here is far from what you'd expect from a university. Most of the lectures are outdated, disorganized, and provide no real value. There's no sense of guidance or learning; it feels like you're handed assignments just for the sake of it, without any of the actual learning experience that should come with it.
On top of that, there have been concerning signs that some teachers are relying on AI marking. Many students received similar grades and identical feedback, which strongly suggests the use of automated assessment tools. This is completely unacceptable—AI marking is lazy and removes the human element of grading. Students work hard on their assignments, only to be judged by a flawed algorithm that does not understand effort, context, or critical thinking. The lack of transparency around marking only worsens the frustration, as teachers refuse to clarify how they grade assignments.
4)A Teacher Who Sabotaged Our Future – Prapa Rattadilok
One of the worst experiences in this university was having to take a module under Prapa Rattadilok. Her incompetence, arrogance, and complete disregard for students led to one of the most unfairly conducted modules I have ever experienced.
Her mismanagement of practical tests was a disaster:
The first test was conducted over two days, with different batches receiving the same question, leading to complaints and a forced retest.
Many students who provided video proof of their correct work still received 0 marks, even though it was an open-book test.
The computers were extremely slow, and she refused to let students use their own laptops, which would have significantly improved performance.
No proper guidance was given on how to write up our work, yet we were penalized harshly for not documenting things the way she wanted.
The second test was even worse:
It required combining multiple components that were never covered in class, making it unfairly difficult.
She broke her own rules—students were told they could use OneDrive for notes, but during the test, she forced them to close their notes without explanation.
The retest was just as bad—students were assessed on topics they were never taught, and the difficulty was far beyond undergraduate level.
Her marking scheme was completely unfair, with many students receiving 0 or close to 0 marks across all assessments. The lack of mock exams, feedback, and justification made it impossible for students to improve. One student was even denied entry for arriving 2 minutes late, despite traveling a long distance to get there.
Her attitude toward students was beyond unacceptable:
She mocked students for not knowing her email, wasting precious test time instead of helping them.
When a student emailed asking for support, she responded with: "I believe you are one who complained", showing clear bias and unprofessional behavior.
She ignored complaints, refused to meet students face-to-face, and acted as if students were beneath her.
When students demanded a fair resolution, she dismissed them completely, ignoring all valid concerns.
Her mismanagement has seriously impacted students' futures—many students wanted to apply to top universities for postgraduate studies, but their unfairly low grades will make that impossible.
5) Unreasonable Team Selection and Timetable Restrictions
*(Responsible Teacher: Nathan Beka)
Another major issue is the university’s lack of flexibility when it comes to group projects and timetables. Students are not given the freedom to choose their own teams—teams must be formed only within their assigned sessions. This is incredibly restrictive and unnecessary. It would be far better if students could choose their own groups, regardless of session time, to accommodate different schedules.

Worse yet, students are being forced to stick to rigid timetables, even when those timetables are unreasonable. A teacher outright stated:
"The module team will not be responding to timetable change requests moving forward."
Some students have long travel distances, family responsibilities, or work commitments, yet they are forced into inconvenient and even unsafe schedules. In some cases, students have been placed in 5-7 PM sessions, which is completely unfair—especially for those who have to travel long distances at night when public transport is unreliable or unsafe. When students requested to switch to earlier sessions, they were flat-out denied without any valid reason.
The lack of flexibility and poor communication surrounding timetables is yet another example of how the university fails to consider student well-being.
6) Incompetent Teachers and a Total Lack of Communication
*(Responsible Teacher: Deepthi Ratnayake)
The lack of teacher involvement is alarming. Many lecturers don’t show up to classes, and when they do, it's common for them to arrive late or rush through the content. Communication is almost non-existent—emails go unanswered, and when teachers do respond, it's often a lazy, vague answer that offers no real help. The teachers that genuinely care about the students are far too few, and their efforts are overshadowed by the overall neglect that permeates this place.
This lack of care is especially clear in some of the harsh and dismissive messages sent by lecturers. One teacher even sent a message with the following statement:
"If you miss classes, you will be on your own to deal with the consequences as we are unable to give you any private tutoring and give you email feedback on your work."
This attitude is completely unacceptable. Students have personal lives, families, and health concerns that may prevent them from attending every class. The university’s refusal to accommodate personal circumstances, such as work obligations or family responsibilities, shows a complete lack of empathy and understanding.
Rather than helping students overcome obstacles, Deepthi Ratnayake’s approach is to threaten and dismiss them. Instead of creating a positive and supportive learning environment, this kind of attitude only discourages students and adds unnecessary stress.
7) Travel to University – Constant Delays and Price Increases
Traveling to and from university is a nightmare, thanks to UNO Buses. The service is unreliable, with buses frequently running late or simply not showing up at all.
Students often have to wait over an hour for a bus.
Bus prices were increased, making it an even worse deal for students.
Bus drivers frequently have negative attitudes—some are rude and dismissive.
Some buses skip stops entirely and just drive past waiting students.
This transport system is not only unreliable but also expensive. Many students end up struggling to even reach the university on time due to these constant delays.
8) Robot Coursework Issue – No Testing at Home
One of the most absurd restrictions imposed by the university is regarding the robot programming coursework.
Students are only allowed to test the robot in the university lab, meaning they have to physically travel to campus every time they want to test their code.
The teacher explicitly prohibited students from purchasing their own robot, which would have been a more convenient and practical solution.
No remote testing options were provided, forcing students to waste time and money traveling just to test their work.
This is incredibly unfair, as students should have the option to test their code from home or use their own equipment. The university’s rigid and outdated approach to coursework makes learning more difficult and adds unnecessary stress to students.
9) Subpar Facilities and Infrastructure
The infrastructure here is appalling. The computer labs are laughably inadequate—slow, outdated systems that constantly have issues opening, submitting, or even saving files. The workspace is uncomfortable, with broken chairs and a lack of basic amenities. Even accessing the labs can be a hassle, as doors are often locked, forcing students to wait around until someone lets them in.
The air conditioning system is another problem altogether—it barely works, and in some rooms, there’s no air conditioning at all, leading to either extreme heat or unbearable cold. The windows are rusted and difficult to operate, raising safety concerns and making the environment feel even less hospitable.
10)Good vs. Bad Teachers
While many lecturers at the University of Hertfordshire are incompetent or completely apathetic, there are still a handful of good teachers who genuinely care about students and their education.
Good Teachers (Dedicated, Helpful, and Professional):
• Christopher Baker (Great maths lecturer, kind to all students)
• Manuel Gomes Rosmaninho (amazing software engineer, attendance 100%)
• Pamela Green (great teacher, not met but talked online)
• Kheng Koay (strict but effective teacher, attendance 100%)
• Silvia Moros (amazing practical teacher, kind to all students, attendance 100%)
• Raimund Kirner (great lecturer, kind and responsive to all students)
• Kufreh Sampson (Best of the best, understands all students, attendance 100%)
• Deepak Panday (Best of the best, understands all students, attendance 100%)
• Paul Moggridge (Great supervisor, nice attitude to students)
• Barry Ip (Best of the best, understands all students, attendance 100%)
• Pranjal Sharma (Very good teacher, helpful to everyone, attendance 100%)
• Daniel Polani (Crazy mind but very good lecturer, responds to all students, attendance 100%)
• Yongjun Zheng (Not had him but heard good things about him)
• Azita Pourghasem (Best of the best, understands all students, attendance 100%)
• Parisa Rahimi (Best of the best, understands all students, attendance 100%)
• Lora Tonga (Best of the best, understands all students, attendance 100%)
• Felix Riegler (Very good teacher, attendance 100%, responds to all emails)
• Bente Riegler (very good practical teacher, kind and respectful)
• Mariana Lilley (Met online briefly, great teacher, helped with online test)
• Karen Archer (Great practical teacher, kind and respectful, attendance 100%)
• Barry Nichols (Best of the best, understands all students, attendance 100%)
• John Kanyaru (Great lecturer and practical teacher, kind and respectful to students, attendance 100%)
• W Fernando (Best of the best, understands all students, attendance 100%)
• Satrya Pratama (Great teacher, informative, not met but heard he’s good)
• Junchao Wang (Great practical teacher, kind and respectful, attendance 100%)
• Tazeen Syed (great module leader, kind and respectful, attendance 100%)
These are the teachers who actually make an effort to help students and ensure they learn. There is so much I can say about these teachers but we would be here for ages – in short if I win the lottery, I would give every teacher mentioned above 5-10%.
Bad Teachers (Incompetent, Rude, and Disorganized):
• Prapa Rattadilok (The worst of them all, sabotaged students’ futures)
• Nathan Beka (Strict and unfair with timetables and team selection)
• Deepthi Ratnayake (Dismissive, unhelpful, and lacking compassion)
• Alexandra Marczyk (Super strict and old-fashioned)
• Stephen Hunt (Selfish, he accused a student with cheating but didn’t want to meet up with them and hear them out)
• Alex Shafarenko (Extremely bad, he didn’t provide mock tests for his module, treats he co-workers like trash, gave students extremely hard robot exercises)
• Michael Walters (Cares more about his money/salary than the students, has time to protest but no time to aid students)
• Paul Morris (Cares more about his salary, refused to help a student with their CWK but had time to protest for his salary being reduced)
• Diego Resende Faria (Unreliable, late, uses chatGPT to teach, bad attitude when asked questions)
• Andrew Pyper (Super strict, unfair marking, has favouritism over certain students)
• Alireza Poshtkohi (Very bad attitude, only helps and respects smarty students, treats others like trash, always shouting)
• Deepthi Ratnayake (Crazy mindset, she thinks all students should put University above their family, health and job)
These are the lecturers who either don’t care, are disorganized, or actively make things worse for students. These teachers mentioned above, I can go into more detail about their bad deeds, but we would be here forever. I don’t know how they got their job; they simply have forgotten their days as students, they abuse their power and enjoy seeing us students suffer.
Conclusion – Avoid This University at All Costs
My experience at the University of Hertfordshire has been nothing short of traumatic. The combination of a disorganized administration, poor teaching quality, insufficient facilities, AI-based grading, transport issues, and a complete disregard for student welfare has left me regretting my decision to study here every day.
The incompetence of lecturers like Prapa Rattadilok has made things even worse, with unfair marking schemes, impossible tests, and a complete lack of professionalism. If this university truly cared about its students, they would have taken action against such teachers instead of allowing them to ruin students' futures.
I strongly advise anyone considering attending this university to think twice—no degree is worth the stress, neglect, and mistreatment that come with attending this place. If you value your mental health, well-being, and future, look elsewhere. This university is nothing more than an overpriced scam that preys on unsuspecting students.

The accommodation is exceptional. Really nicely made, very high quality, in a great location but expensive for what it is. But highly worth it and with other cheaper accommodation available, it's not too bad.

New library with a huge range of books and equipment at your disposal. New lecture halls and equipment make lectures a nice experience with WiFi all over campus.

Engineering lecturers are very good and help in any way they can. Whether that be in person or by email. Great general support within the university as well but normally has a big wait list.

The accommodation is exceptional. Really nicely made, very high quality, in a great location but expensive for what it is. But highly worth it and with other cheaper accommodation available, it's not too bad.

New library with a huge range of books and equipment at your disposal. New lecture halls and equipment make lectures a nice experience with WiFi all over campus.

Engineering lecturers are very good and help in any way they can. Whether that be in person or by email. Great general support within the university as well but normally has a big wait list.