Melbourne Model - Why all this fuss?

[QuantumJG]

Hi guys,

A few weeks ago it was voting week and a group of students from one of the groups was talking about how they are trying to get the university to review the melbourne model.

This has probably been posted before, but, I have no idea why so many people hate the melbourne model. I went into a bachelor of science degree because i had so many interests such as maths, physics and engineering and thought that if something like a bachelor of science allows me to have a year of experiencing all three, then great.

Is the problem that people don't like the fact that most degrees require a post-graduate degree to be able to do what you study as an occupation? For me I was always going to go for a masters or a PhD in my chosen area because I would like to have that extra knowledge and experience from being in a graduate degree, so whether I went to melbourne or monash I would have been aiming to have atleast a masters in one of those areas.

But really what is this all about.
 

[ninwa]

I don't hate it, I just wouldn't choose it. I felt it would be too risky doing just a straight arts degree, in case I didn't get the marks required and do well enough in the LSAT to do graduate law - that would've been a waste of my ENTER seeing as it was good enough to get me into arts/law straight away.

But I actually quite like the idea of breadth. I knew that I was more suited to a humanities-style discipline but I do have other interests ... I would've done music or maybe even a science subject.


(However, if Victorian College of Arts degrees are forced to conform to the Melbourne Model then I WILL hate it and hate it with a passion. It is an academic learning model. It is not for training elite artists/musicians/dancers/actors etc. Don't get me started on this though I could go on and on and on =P)

[QuantumJG]

I don't hate it, I just wouldn't choose it. I felt it would be too risky doing just a straight arts degree, in case I didn't get the marks required and do well enough in the LSAT to do graduate law - that would've been a waste of my ENTER seeing as it was good enough to get me into arts/law straight away.

But I actually quite like the idea of breadth. I knew that I was more suited to a humanities-style discipline but I do have other interests ... I would've done music or maybe even a science subject.


(However, if Victorian College of Arts degrees are forced to conform to the Melbourne Model then I WILL hate it and hate it with a passion. It is an academic learning model. It is not for training elite artists/musicians/dancers/actors etc. Don't get me started on this though I could go on and on and on =P)

Yeah you make a good point with the law part.

With science a lot of the students are doing biomedicine or science to become doctors and I think this may be giving them false hope as it is really hard to get into a graduate medicine degree.

But for me its going fine as either engineering, physics or maths are my areas of study I'm interested in.

I don't agree either with forcing VCA students to do a melbourne model degree as this isn't what they went to VCA for. There were a few talented musicians at my school who now go to VCA and their place was determined by ENTER and also a performance audition. Seriously though if they wanted to do a Melbourne model degree they would have gone to melbourne uni and not VCA. What my uni has done to VCA isn't fair to them.

[Mao]

Even though it is important to broaden students', I don't find the idea of forcing people to do something outside of their discipline is such a good idea, it's like choosing between Brussels sprouts and boiled cabbage. Monash has electives where you can choose to do a subject from another faculty or your own faculty.

[excal]

Hi guys,

A few weeks ago it was voting week and a group of students from one of the groups was talking about how they are trying to get the university to review the melbourne model.

This has probably been posted before, but, I have no idea why so many people hate the melbourne model. I went into a bachelor of science degree because i had so many interests such as maths, physics and engineering and thought that if something like a bachelor of science allows me to have a year of experiencing all three, then great.

Is the problem that people don't like the fact that most degrees require a post-graduate degree to be able to do what you study as an occupation? For me I was always going to go for a masters or a PhD in my chosen area because I would like to have that extra knowledge and experience from being in a graduate degree, so whether I went to melbourne or monash I would have been aiming to have atleast a masters in one of those areas.

But really what is this all about.
 

Bolded and underlined for effect. A lot of students do not intend to progress to post-graduate study.

I personally don't have an opinion of the Melbourne Model...after all, you chose to study at Melbourne knowing full well the program was being implemented. You have a choice; vote with your feet.

[d0minicz]

im happy if i get in postgrad !

[jimmy999]

The reason why I didn't place UoM as my first preference for engineering is the fact that I would have to do breadth subjects. Thing is I know I want to do engineering and the fact I would have to do a breadth subject means I won't be able to pick up a subject like physics or IT and instead would have to do some humanities subject or a language.

I think the universities intention that people should start of generally before deciding what discipline to venture into is a good idea, but the thing is the model limits those who know exactly what they want to do.

Plus breadth subjects is a bad thing. It should be titled electives in which people could choose any subject within any faculty

[Kopite]

Thing is I know I want to do engineering and the fact I would have to do a breadth subject means I won't be able to pick up a subject like physics or IT and instead would have to do some humanities subject or a language.

Wrong. You would be able to do both physics and IT.

I think the universities intention that people should start of generally before deciding what discipline to venture into is a good idea, but the thing is the model limits those who know exactly what they want to do.

Debatable. For engineering, you get a Bachelor of Eng at monash clayuton in 4 years. At UOM, you get a Bachelor + Masters of Eng in 5 years. If people are seeking higher qualifications in as little time as possible then i'm sure people wouldn't mind losing a year for a masters.

[Glockmeister]

I think the universities intention that people should start of generally before deciding what discipline to venture into is a good idea, but the thing is the model limits those who know exactly what they want to do.

Debatable. For engineering, you get a Bachelor of Eng at monash clayuton in 4 years. At UOM, you get a Bachelor + Masters of Eng in 5 years. If people are seeking higher qualifications in as little time as possible then i'm sure people wouldn't mind losing a year for a masters.

That said, those at Monash would have the benefit of having one year extra work experience over their UoM counterparts.

[Kopite]

I think the universities intention that people should start of generally before deciding what discipline to venture into is a good idea, but the thing is the model limits those who know exactly what they want to do.

Debatable. For engineering, you get a Bachelor of Eng at monash clayuton in 4 years. At UOM, you get a Bachelor + Masters of Eng in 5 years. If people are seeking higher qualifications in as little time as possible then i'm sure people wouldn't mind losing a year for a masters.

That said, those at Monash would have the benefit of having one year extra work experience over their UoM counterparts.

True. Can't have everything =]P

[squance]

I think the universities intention that people should start of generally before deciding what discipline to venture into is a good idea, but the thing is the model limits those who know exactly what they want to do.

Debatable. For engineering, you get a Bachelor of Eng at monash clayuton in 4 years. At UOM, you get a Bachelor + Masters of Eng in 5 years. If people are seeking higher qualifications in as little time as possible then i'm sure people wouldn't mind losing a year for a masters.

That said, those at Monash would have the benefit of having one year extra work experience over their UoM counterparts.

And work experience is what makes Monash engineers more employable then UoM engineers (based on what people have told me)

[QuantumJG]

Thing is I know I want to do engineering and the fact I would have to do a breadth subject means I won't be able to pick up a subject like physics or IT and instead would have to do some humanities subject or a language.

Wrong. You would be able to do both physics and IT.

I think the universities intention that people should start of generally before deciding what discipline to venture into is a good idea, but the thing is the model limits those who know exactly what they want to do.

Debatable. For engineering, you get a Bachelor of Eng at monash clayuton in 4 years. At UOM, you get a Bachelor + Masters of Eng in 5 years. If people are seeking higher qualifications in as little time as possible then i'm sure people wouldn't mind losing a year for a masters.

If you did engineering at Melbourne you could not do physics or IT as a breadth.

With post-grad if you can get into Melbourne uni and work really hard, then post-grad is definately an option.

Post-graduates also earn higher salaries than their counterpart.

With Melbourne, getting an ENTER of 85 left studying science or engineering open. At monash to do a Science degree with an ENTER of only 75 or a plain engineering degree requires an ENTER of 91 (not that many students get 91), and an ENTER of 94+ to have the option of science and engineering.

[Gloamglozer]

Post-graduates also earn higher salaries than their counterpart.

But wouldn't you have to worry about being "over qualified" because I heard being "over qualified" without much work experience makes it harder for post graduates to find employment?

[excal]

Two things:

- Relevant work experience, at this age, is much more valued than a piece of paper.
- What makes the UoM professional master degrees any better than their specialised bachelor counterparts other than name? Effectively speaking, both students have studied the relevant subject matter for around the same time (in fact, possibly less for the master's graduate).

In time, the employment market will realise the actual standard of the masters degree (whether it be bad or good) and consider them as such against the current as-is undergraduate degrees. So I guess, time will tell.

[iamdan08]

I like the Melbourne model. I find it good to not be focusing solely on the one area of study. Breadth has allowed me to continue accounting subjects which i enjoyed in high school, as well as study other areas that are of interest me. Of course this isn't for everyone, but it really depends on the person. I'm finding biomedicine challenging, but enjoyable, and I'm glad I'm studying it.

I'm starting to notice a trend in this thread, in that those at Monash tend to not be a fan of the melbourne model, while those at melbourne seem to like it (or aren't unhappy with it anyway). Really, it comes down to the person and what they want out of their degree, and i guess this will influence whether you will put Melbourne or Monash higher on your uni preferences.