"Why our universities are failing" - opinions??

[thaaanyan]

Hey guys,
So I was researching the LSAT and I stumbled across this: https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/03/australian-universities-just-good-enough/

I'm not sure if we've discussed this before, but it's essentially talking about the quality of tertiary education (in particular education offered in laws schools) in Australia when compared to global universities (in particular the US & the UK). Allan is part of the University of Queensland's law faculty, and as far as i can tell, he's essentially arguing the higher education in Australia is stagnating in comparison to foreign universities. (Ok, tbh, he says we're kind of shit).

He blames a lack of competition among universities to receive the best students, which I guess is true. What he was saying about different unis competing in their own city did strike a cord - for many of my peers the competition has only ever been between Melbourne and Monash, there's not really a tradition of travelling interstate to go to uni here. He goes on to comment that this lets universities sell short undergraduate kids, because universities aren't competing nationally with one another: "They can stuff 300 or 400 or more students into a first-year law course, even at one of the old established Group of Eight universities, and they can get away with it..."

He also highlights that there is too much bureaucracy in universities: ".... there is the overwhelming extent to which decisions in Australia are made at the centre, not devolved down to the departments (on the weird assumption, I suppose, that all parts of the university are exactly the same). So in the law school you cannot decide how to treat your own doctorate students in terms of how often their progress must be assessed. There is a university-wide rule. You cannot decide how to mark. There is a university “criterion-based marking mandate”, indefensible though it is (and ignored as much as possible)..."

Having said that, there is a fair amount of privilege in this article. In particular this section made me upset:

"There would even be one ancillary benefit on an issue that few Australian university bureaucrats are prepared to talk about. And that is the stunningly high percentage of Australian undergraduates who have a job while attending university. This is widely seen as a good thing by parents and the students themselves, and sotto voce, by university administrators too (who do everything they can in the way of trying to force lectures to be recorded and more to make working easier for students).

But of course it is a bad idea, for any course or lecturer or program that is any good at all. In Canadian law schools (and US ones, and UK ones) you are expected to be working on your degree full-time. You are expected to do lots of reading. You are expected to think. You are expected to pursue things on your own. You are not expected to schedule classes all on two days of the week so you can work the other three. Or tell your professor that you can’t do something because it conflicts with work. Or be so tired that you do as little reading as you can get away with."

And then this section from earlier just makes things worse:
"....When I try to point out the advantages of sending one’s kids away to university here in Australia I am generally met with blank stares of incredulity. Quite a few people even go on about the extra cost of sending one’s kids away. But that latter point is largely wrong-headed. Take the cost of being in residence for a year, let’s call that $12,000 a year. Now from that take away the costs of commuting back and forth each day to university (for a year) and also the cost of food, as you will have to pay these when your kids stay at home and commute to classes. Some parents even throw in a car."

I can't go to university unless I work. My parents cannot put out for the whole my commute, the cost of food, textbooks etc. The implication that we work part time for fun and don't think at all at school is not only insulting but is also untrue. What I am curious about, however, is how much you guys think is true about the quality of education that our universities put forward? He attacks the global ranking lists as flawed, and I'm curious if this is true - that comparatively speaking Australian universities "demand so little of our students." Also, what do you guys think of the solutions that he offers?

SO BASICALLY: I'm curious of this general opinion because I'm starting university soon, and in particular considering law, though the response of any uni student in relation to the verity of this guy's claims would be really interesting to hear.

[Alps]

Hey guys,
So I was researching the LSAT and I stumbled across this: https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/03/australian-universities-just-good-enough/

I'm not sure if we've discussed this before, but it's essentially talking about the quality of tertiary education (in particular education offered in laws schools) in Australia when compared to global universities (in particular the US & the UK). Allan is part of the University of Queensland's law faculty, and as far as i can tell, he's essentially arguing the higher education in Australia is stagnating in comparison to foreign universities. (Ok, tbh, he says we're kind of shit).

He blames a lack of competition among universities to receive the best students, which I guess is true. What he was saying about different unis competing in their own city did strike a cord - for many of my peers the competition has only ever been between Melbourne and Monash, there's not really a tradition of travelling interstate to go to uni here. He goes on to comment that this lets universities sell short undergraduate kids, because universities aren't competing nationally with one another: "They can stuff 300 or 400 or more students into a first-year law course, even at one of the old established Group of Eight universities, and they can get away with it..."

He also highlights that there is too much bureaucracy in universities: ".... there is the overwhelming extent to which decisions in Australia are made at the centre, not devolved down to the departments (on the weird assumption, I suppose, that all parts of the university are exactly the same). So in the law school you cannot decide how to treat your own doctorate students in terms of how often their progress must be assessed. There is a university-wide rule. You cannot decide how to mark. There is a university “criterion-based marking mandate”, indefensible though it is (and ignored as much as possible)..."

Having said that, there is a fair amount of privilege in this article. In particular this section made me upset:

"There would even be one ancillary benefit on an issue that few Australian university bureaucrats are prepared to talk about. And that is the stunningly high percentage of Australian undergraduates who have a job while attending university. This is widely seen as a good thing by parents and the students themselves, and sotto voce, by university administrators too (who do everything they can in the way of trying to force lectures to be recorded and more to make working easier for students).

But of course it is a bad idea, for any course or lecturer or program that is any good at all. In Canadian law schools (and US ones, and UK ones) you are expected to be working on your degree full-time. You are expected to do lots of reading. You are expected to think. You are expected to pursue things on your own. You are not expected to schedule classes all on two days of the week so you can work the other three. Or tell your professor that you can’t do something because it conflicts with work. Or be so tired that you do as little reading as you can get away with."

And then this section from earlier just makes things worse:
"....When I try to point out the advantages of sending one’s kids away to university here in Australia I am generally met with blank stares of incredulity. Quite a few people even go on about the extra cost of sending one’s kids away. But that latter point is largely wrong-headed. Take the cost of being in residence for a year, let’s call that $12,000 a year. Now from that take away the costs of commuting back and forth each day to university (for a year) and also the cost of food, as you will have to pay these when your kids stay at home and commute to classes. Some parents even throw in a car."

I can't go to university unless I work. My parents cannot put out for the whole my commute, the cost of food, textbooks etc. The implication that we work part time for fun and don't think at all at school is not only insulting but is also untrue. What I am curious about, however, is how much you guys think is true about the quality of education that our universities put forward? He attacks the global ranking lists as flawed, and I'm curious if this is true - that comparatively speaking Australian universities "demand so little of our students." Also, what do you guys think of the solutions that he offers?

SO BASICALLY: I'm curious of this general opinion because I'm starting university soon, and in particular considering law, though the response of any uni student in relation to the verity of this guy's claims would be really interesting to hear.

Its true that there isnt much competition, except for Monash or Melbourne, which are considered 'privileged" You can do Law at Victoria University with an 80 atar. Many people chose law because its 'prestisgious' many dont think that they will face conflict every day or that the work is demanding. I feel like many are just simply misinformed.

[Alps]

Theres a great post made by someone about considering law, but i cant find it!

[thaaanyan]

Theres a great post made by someone about considering law, but i cant find it!

Ninwa's posts right? Most helpful things ever!!
The article was more about the fact that the prestige of even GO8 unis is false -  that Australia's tertiary education is cheap compared to foreign universities - both due to the structure and function of the way things were taught. The author was just using law as through the faculty by which he explored this cross comparison. I was curious about ANs response to this.

[lacune]

Hmm that's quite an interesting and eye-opening read. I'm not a current law student, but I'm starting this year, and from the research and albeit limited exposure to unis I suppose these would be my initial responses - though probably take them with quite a bit of salt!

1. Competition. American and UK universities in general are much smaller than Australian ones, eg Oxford is half the size of Syd; Harvard has ~7k undergrads and ~20k students overall, and the only Go8 uni that small is ANU, for which it is also interesting to note the majority of their undergrads move from interstate to attend. Given the amount of US high school students that graduate and go to college each year, by 'competition' I would assume this would make an Oxbridge/Ivy League be a kind of 'creme de la creme' institution in terms of its students, whereas UniMelb/USyd would catch that state's elite but also be more broad (by account of its far more places vs high school grads ratio). At any Go8 institution then, you are still getting those top students but also a lot more diverse mix, but the student body is still probably top notch, and their aggregate contribution might be somewhat comparable to that of the student environment at a top US/UK uni? Canadian universities are only slightly smaller than Aust Go8 ones so I couldn't really speculate on that? I'm not sure 100% what he's suggesting with this: "They can stuff 300 or 400 or more students into a first-year law course, even at one of the old established Group of Eight universities, and they can get away with it..." but on the whole Go8 uni's law faculties/schools will be that size, and the people in those will be by and large of similar standards. That being said though, not all universities are created equal, and if you really want to bag yourself a quality academic environment (in terms of the professors, lecturers etc) then it might pay to shop around and consider more than just the best uni in the state.

2. University bureaucracy. Australian unis as far as I'm aware are very complex machines that are staffed by a large body of uni administrators/bureaucrats. I'm sure his comments that such centralised academic control as opposed to devolution of academic management does create significant hindrances and difficulties.

3. Quality of Australian undergraduate education. It's probably some of the top in the world, but definitely nowhere near the rigour of a UK education. As compared to a US education - a notable (initially, at least) difference is the rigour in the first two years from what I've heard. In the US, college seems and acts more like an extension of high school - you position yourself to go to the best possible one and you relocate in order to do that, and for a lot of top students acts merely as a precursor to 'graduate school'; there is a lot more 'hand-holding' to begin off with, but I couldn't really say about the later years. But neither system (US undergrad, NB law there is postgrad and heavier workload) seems to match the rigour of a UK education, where institutions such as Oxbridge advise against students working part time on the side because the academic demands are so high such that you could not not sacrifice academic results and progress to fit work in. The nature of uni in general, and of the Australian system is that undergraduate learning is very much based on autodidacticism. You very much have agency to determine the extent and quantity of how much you get out of it; and there's a reason why they're called 'lecturers' and not 'teachers'. They say that a Bachelors degree qualifies you to teach yourself something, a Masters to teach others, and a Doctorate to teach people in your field something they don't know about it. So undergrad quality/rigour: maybe UK > Aus > US imo. For law in particular - UK by far; US law schools demand a lot from their students, much more than in undergrad; Aust degrees are broader due to the Priestly 11 requirement, probably has a lower bar in terms of the minimum workload required, but probably somewhat comparable if you do all the readings etc and put a lot of time into studying law. At least in terms of their research output, though the rankings are overrated and never a full picture as the author himself notes, Australian unis are right up the top with UK faculties of law and US law schools.

4. Working as an undergrad. US undergrad system definitely encourages people to be broad, and therefore do some work. As above with the UK, law or otherwise, there just isn't the time. If you're studying in Australia and not spending a comparable amount of time in study, then there's obviously gonna be a difference in level of education and understanding you receive in your degree program. The suggestion that you don't work, or work less, seems to be more of an encouragement to focus more on and spend more time on the academic side of the equation, not neglecting the fact that providing/supplanting income and gaining work experience is important also.
Universities are primarily there as academic, not vocational institutions (with the exception of a US law school), so unlike US, UK and especially Aust LLBs are more academic and 'generalist' and are therefore designed to be an access to academic thought and scholarship in the field/s you have chosen to study, and by decreasing the amount of time you spend on it and its relative importance students are potentially decreasing the value they might get out of their degree program.

In summary, essentially with the competition and work elements, university structure and role (in the big picture of the education system) plays a lot in determining whether or not people move, how much people work part-time on the side etc, I think.