Singer, Peter. 2009. We must nurture the humanities. The Age, 27 July 2009.
In the fine article above there is not much mention of environmental issues (other than climate change, briefly) but the plight of the humanities in ‘restructuring’ universities like Melbourne, where we have lost staff and endowed income, reflects changing priorities and diminished budgets.
These education budget cuts, at home and abroad, are deep and potentially destructive, as Singer notes. He favours the US model over Australia. Like Singer I have taught at universities in both countries. Singer praises the attention in the US to broad and critical undergrad curricula, and laments the cutbacks, and arrival of vocational courses instead, that have diminished these in Australia. Yet in the US, history shows that a few very rich universities have escaped cutbacks in this recession, and the situation in most institutions is actually pretty bad, probably worse overall than in ours (which is partially federally funded). Where I taught in America til 2004, in a very large public university, cuts began almost immediately after 9/11/2001 (not just in 2008), and have continued to this day. Some 20% of the campus is now threatened with closure for lack of income, and staff take unpaid leave on certain days of the year. The ability to deliver a rounded undergrad curriculum relies on adjunct staff. In smaller US universities, the press are reporting serious financial woes and the closure or restriction of certain undergrad programs.
Today, Melbourne University issued a press release to the effect that belts must be tightened once again, so lets hope such drastic costcutting measures, as already seen in the US, are not coming our way.
Leaving aside the fiscal climate, however, what of Singer’s argument that undergrads should have a rounded education teaching them to “think for themselves” rather than one focused on job skills targeted to job prospects ? Well, this is moot point for undergraduate education - because 1) some students are not keen on the classic ’rounded’ critica undergrad degree at that stage of their lives 2) many really do need career skills, especially in a recession and 3) you clearly do not stop learning when you finish a 3 year degree - there are future opportunities at postgrad level and beyond, and in everyday life, to learn. What you do as an undergrad is not your only chance to forge a career path.
The Masters teaching that the OEP coordinates at our University is rather different to an undergrad curriculum in terms of its orientation, and I think that Singer’s appeal for renewed efforts to sustain a broad undergrad curriculum are partially being met (in the environmental area) by our Program already. An environmental program needs to be flexible to accomodate full time, working , and part time students. In both Australia and the USA, we know that students at the Masters level want to gain deeper knowledge than they obtained in their 1st degree, for a range of reasons. In the OEP for example we find that some want to specialise, while others wish to ‘explore’ much more widely during their studies. So we decided to offer both paths. Offering specialist ’streams’ in the OEP Masters, as well as a more open tailored program, seems the way to go for us. Increasing enrolments over time seem to suggest this is a viable option for a teaching program – keep it broad, while constraining this where necessary or desireable for the ‘Streams’. In many respects we offer a ‘liberal arts Masters’ across the Arts and Sciences. SB (these are my own views)
Powered by FireStats