The Melbourne model is looking rather anorexic

[enwiabe]

Did you not hear me say that UP UNTIL the whitlam government, education was COMPLETELY and I mean 100% FREE for 80% of attendees?

I really don't think you heard me. This isn't something you can spout about "leftists" this is FACT.

[Collin Li]

Oh really, I didn't know that.

Intuition still tells me something is wrong: what were the numbers of people who actually studied a tertiary degree back then compared to now (per capita)?

Remember, it's not only about the price of a degree. It's about living standards in general which cause people to substitute further education for money now (e.g.: a trade), so the government actions on university degrees aren't the most important thing.

[enwiabe]

When do you mean "back then"?

Back when universities were first starting?

World war II?

The '60s?

"back then" is rather vague

Universities only came into vogue (in Australia) in the early-mid 1900s and government policy on them really only came to the 'fore in the '30s-'40s.

[QuantumJG]

No need to try to be clever or defensive. I'm asking a curious question. Perhaps a better question would have been "why do you believe this?"

If you read your own original post, you would have realised that you said more people are "falling wayside" to practical considerations rather than the love of learning - not merely that "some people do this" (i.e.: me, and not particularly ashamed of it).

If anything, the opposite is true. The growing standards of living and accessibility of education mean that people are more free to pursue things independent of financial stability. In the past (and still for many today), people would have to consider their financial stability (which is really a measure of how much freedom they can afford) over choosing a course for the love of learning. For some, these values do not work in tandem with each other, and so some will choose a course that provides better financial security (an investment) over one that would offer them more of a "consumer good".

As an aside, I believe universities don't post degrees for the "love of teaching", as darlok suggested, (which wasn't what we were talking about) but whether you decide your course based on the "love of learning" is up to you, and most likely heavily depends on your financial situation (freedom) too.

I totally agree with what coblin is saying!

The financial outcome of your career (believe it or not) does actually determine your freedom! People who will want to start a family in the future will actually need a good financial status to be able to be a good provider to their children!

When I was at school 'balancing' financial outcome and what I enjoy doing needed to be done. When I was at school we went to my university (now) to look at the chemistry labs and I met a chemist working there and she said something that really got me down about pursuing something in science as she looked depressed and said: "The pay is really bad". Now I was thinking what 'freedom' would I have if my financial status wasn't that good.

Now I am looking at engineering (People are now saying that the pay for engineering is crap) as alternative to fields I'm already interested in (physics or maths) to see if I would actually enjoy it (At school you don't really learn anything about engineering).

Why do people have this views that arts students should get a medal for doing philosophy or being interested in the english language and commerce students are looked at as just salary hungry? Like I mean look at medical or law students both will get a high salary and high respect from the public and everyone wants to become one.

Ok now back to the actual thread!

The melbourne model looking rather anorexic.

The model is good for people (e.g. me) who want their university experience to determine their major as you do a broad degree and then a professional degree (i.e. engineering: 3 years BSc and 2 years MEng). The university has made a very contraversial move but it didn't divert me (or a lot of other people from year 12 last year) from going to melbourne as it has been a university I have wanted to study at for ages and I can still do what I want to do! Ultimately the university is still a very reputable one. I personally am loving my experience at melbourne.

 

[Eriny]

I think this idea of getting a degree for the sake of intellectual inquiry refers to one end in an of itself that makes education important. But, there are many other ends to education that exist, such as the monetary gain. I'm not sure how viable it would be to provide an education system that only aimed to achieve this first end. I think it could be justified, but participation in such an education system would be much lower. I could ask myself: would I still study Arts if it meant that I was only smarter at the end, ignoring all the other opportunities that could arise as a result of being educated? Here, I refer to an enhanced ability to get into other degrees as well as obtain employment. The answer would be maybe, but probably not at this stage of my life.

So, the point I'm making is that while I believe the intellectual benefits of a broad degree are great (and indeed, this is what attracted me to Arts in the first place), any degree that was pointless on a practical level (in terms of employment, etc.) would have extremely limited enrolments. I guess we're still limited intellectually by the fact that we live in the real world and that we have to make money in order to survive. For that reason, I don't really look down on commerce students as long as they're studying what they think will make them happy in the long-term.

[ninwa]

Like I mean look at medical or law students both will get a high salary and high respect from the public and everyone wants to become one.

I wish!
Law students seem to have this unfortunate reputation for being rich and arrogant. Doesn't get any better once we become lawyers either - then that becomes rich, arrogant, greedy and morally-deficient

I agree Eriny, you make a very good point. I doubt anyone would study a degree if it had absolutely no practical application in life, though I can think of a few people who chose their course primarily for the love of learning (Ahmad comes to mind). I just liked that the attribute of "no immediate commercial application" is not an automatic death-knell for a subject at Harvard.

[Collin Li]

I didn't even reply to that article at first because it was such a joke really. Melbourne still has Arts doesn't it?

It's not the best criticism of the Melbourne Model, to say the very least. And as I said (and Eriny said in a less commerce way), degrees are part-investment, part-consumer goods (these parts don't have to be mutually exclusive), so it's not even the most direct criticism (it's saying it's really good and relevant in one aspect of a university degree).

[excal]

This is a most unfortunate occurrence, and love of learning is falling by the wayside as more people choose degrees which get them more $$ while sacrificing personal enjoyment. Sad but true

Can you prove this claim?

Anecdotally, yes, there are many stories (even on this forum!) of people weighing up career options over personal satisfaction.

Two things:

- prima facie, anecdotes are a weak form of argument
- the correlation that people tend to weigh up career options over personal satisfaction does not imply that people *will* place their career over personal satisfaction (therefore, not proven - merely suggested)

[lukeperry91]

One point that the editorial overlooks is that the percentage of students in a system such as Harvard's that go on to study post-graduate is much higher than in a system such as Monash's! Harvard presumably fosters good learning skills (which presumably includes cultural literacy) so that its alumni can go on to a post graduate degree with a greater aptitude for learning using these skills! I don't see the relevance of 'immediate economic practicability' if a majority (I only know this anecdotally, I have a cousin doing pre-med at Brown) of students go on to do a post-graduate study, which does have economic practicability.

Personally, I am thinking that I want to get into medical imaging and radiology, but I'm not 100% sure yet! So, when weighting my options in preparation for my submission of VTAC preferences, I look at the MBBSat Monash, and the Biomed/science stream at melbourne. As I am not 100% sure that I want to do medicine, I'm definately going to put UoM over Monash because if I change my mind, I can still get a degree without resetting credit! Also, being able to decide if I want to go on to further study after a three year Biomedicine course will come in handy! So, not only does the Melbourne model provide more breadth in its courses, it provides more leverage!

[Glockmeister]

One of the interesting things about the US system that is different from our systems (and which hasn't really been discusssed in the Australian media that much) is the fact that US degrees are 4 years rather than 3 years here in Australia. The Melbourne Model attempts to implement such a 'US style' system within 3 years suggests to me personally that some of the core units for the undergraduate course would have had to be removed to make way for compulsory breadth subjects.
 

[enwiabe]

This is a most unfortunate occurrence, and love of learning is falling by the wayside as more people choose degrees which get them more $$ while sacrificing personal enjoyment. Sad but true

Can you prove this claim?

Anecdotally, yes, there are many stories (even on this forum!) of people weighing up career options over personal satisfaction.

Two things:

- prima facie, anecdotes are a weak form of argument
- the correlation that people tend to weigh up career options over personal satisfaction does not imply that people *will* place their career over personal satisfaction (therefore, not proven - merely suggested)

Two things:

- Statistics don't exist for this kind of thing.
- You either had a poor choice of words or you just proved my argument for me. :-/

[Glockmeister]

One point that the editorial overlooks is that the percentage of students in a system such as Harvard's that go on to study post-graduate is much higher than in a system such as Monash's! Harvard presumably fosters good learning skills (which presumably includes cultural literacy) so that its alumni can go on to a post graduate degree with a greater aptitude for learning using these skills! I don't see the relevance of 'immediate economic practicability' if a majority (I only know this anecdotally, I have a cousin doing pre-med at Brown) of students go on to do a post-graduate study, which does have economic practicability.

In regards to the first point, you would actually expect that actually. Because most professional occupations such as law, medicine and pharmacy even, require you to have a post-graduate education, you would expect more students to proceed to some sort of post-grad study. Whereas here at Monash say, most professional programmes are in undergraduate level, thus you would see a lower pool of people needing to attain a doctorate or even a masters. Hence you would expect a lower percentage of post-graduate students at Monash compared to post-graduate students at Harvard or the general US system.

[Eriny]

There is a distinction between postgraduate degrees and graduate degrees though. A postgrad degree builds on one's first degree (so a masters or PhD in the same area) whereas a good example of a graduate degree would be Melbourne's JD - something that doesn't build on the first degree but you need the first degree to get into. Another example is the DipEd.

[costargh]

To add to the discussion

We must nurture the humanities
Peter Singer
July 27, 2009

Australian universities need to do much more to fulfil their most important role: teaching students to think for themselves.

WHAT is excellence in a university? For the past five years, dividing my time between Princeton University and the University of Melbourne, I've been confronted by differences in the educational cultures of the United States and Australia. The comparison isn't to Australia's advantage. The leading American universities cherish the ideal of a liberal arts education that in Australia seems to have been overwhelmed by vocational and professional training.

When I came to Princeton, I was told that the university sees undergraduate teaching as its core mission. No matter how distinguished professors may be, or how many books they have published, they are expected to teach undergraduate courses, to participate in events open to undergraduates, and to be available for students to talk to on an individual basis. That message has been consistent with my experience there. Each term offers a feast of activities that involve the university's best minds, attended by undergraduates eager to learn more and to be stimulated to think more deeply. Each term I talk to bright students keen to use their time at Princeton to better understand the world they live in.

Yes, you may say, but Princeton is one of a handful of elite universities. Australian education is more egalitarian. Perhaps, but I've travelled to the South and the Midwest to speak at small colleges that I'd never heard of before the invitation arrived. There I have found the same commitment to education that prevails at Princeton. The academics at these smaller colleges may not publish much, but they believe in what they are doing and the students respond to it.

When I was an undergraduate at the University of Melbourne in the 1960s, my teachers still had time to talk to their students, either in their offices or in the cafeteria or at the pub. Tutorials were limited to 12 students. Today they are often twice that size, making it almost impossible for every student to contribute. Without those conversations, in class and out, I doubt that I would have gone into philosophy. Today's Australian university teachers are under far more pressure, not only to teach more students, but also to publish more papers, and to write more time-consuming applications for research grants that they don't really want, but which, if successful, will somehow demonstrate the value of their research. (When I tell my colleagues at the University of Melbourne that no one at Princeton tells me I should be applying for research grants, I see the envy in their eyes.)

When the University of Melbourne announced that it was switching to a new educational model, and making professional courses such as law and medicine postgraduate, I welcomed this attempt to give a broad education to young Australians before they embark on their career training. But if this model is to work, it needs the key departments in the humanities and sciences to be strong, confident of the value of their work, and enthusiastic about teaching. Instead, because the arts faculty struggles with its budget, we have seen one round of cuts after another, sapping the strength of areas such as philosophy and history.

Some of the blame rests with the government funding formula that emphasises publications and research grants rather than teaching excellence. But Australian academics in the humanities need to accept a share of the responsibility for the state of their field. In some fields, it has become fashionable to write and talk in a way that few can understand. Jargon lends an aura of expertise, but obscures the important issues that are at stake. We do not always put sufficient stress on starting our teaching from where students are, and leading them from there to the issues that it is important for them to think about. Teaching ability should play a more central role in academic appointments, and clarity of thought and expression is to be prized in all fields.

Philosophically, I am a utilitarian, which means that I look at the consequences before I decide what is good. But that means all the consequences, not only the impact that a university has on the gross national product. I regret that so many young Australians do vocationally oriented undergraduate degrees because they believe it will help them to get a job. Perhaps it will; if so, the problem is not with their choices, but with those of the employers. Teaching people to think for themselves equips them for a wide range of future possibilities. The British civil service recruits good philosophy students because they will be able to think and to grasp the essential elements in a new field, even if they have no background in it. New York's investment banks do the same, seeking the best Princeton undergraduates, irrespective of whether their major was philosophy, or history, or economics.

The idea of a liberal arts education goes back more than 2000 years to Plato's Academy. It holds that an educated citizen in a free society should have a grounding in philosophy, history, literature, the sciences, maths, foreign languages, politics and fine arts. We might say that it attempts to answer the broad questions that Gauguin put into the title of one of his paintings (a title that he in turn took from a Catholic catechism): Where do

we come from? What are we? Where are we going? This kind of education does not train you in a profession, but it gives you an intellectual foundation to use throughout your life, whether you decide to go into medicine, law, business, engineering, or any other occupation.

If our best-educated citizens have no idea how to answer these basic questions, we will struggle to build a democracy that can solve the problems we face, whether they are what to do about climate change, the world's poor, the problems of Australia's indigenous people, or the prospect of a future in which we can genetically modify our offspring. An education in the humanities is as valuable today as it was in Plato's time.

Peter Singer is professor of bioethics in the University Centre for Human Values at Princeton University and laureate professor in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. His most recent book is The Life You Can Save.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/we-must-nurture-the-humanities-20090726-dxg1.html?page=-1

[wombifat]

firstly, I really liked that ^ article.

One of the interesting things about the US system that is different from our systems (and which hasn't really been discusssed in the Australian media that much) is the fact that US degrees are 4 years rather than 3 years here in Australia. The Melbourne Model attempts to implement such a 'US style' system within 3 years suggests to me personally that some of the core units for the undergraduate course would have had to be removed to make way for compulsory breadth subjects.
 

secondly, in the US system, you can go on to graduate programs without actually completing a degree. For law you only need to complete two years. So it's all very different.