*smirk*
So the semester is finally over…well for me that is (having Fridays off is pretty awesome) 😛
I’ve been reflecting on the events and I’ve realised that time has gone a lot more faster than it did back in high school. Back in high school there was actually drama and time spent doing nothing, whilst at Uni I’ve been rushing back and forth between classes and the library and orchestra rehearsals – nevertheless to say it has been a fairly good (but not the best) start to the year.
I only have one more assignment to turn in which is due on Monday and I have a fairly easy exam schedule (apart from my Psych Exam and Cello Technical Recital being on the same day) which leaves me with about a month’s break before Semester 2 starts.
One of the things that has been on my mind lately is the Farrago newspaper and the extreme left-wing opinions of the people with regards to the recent proposed second round of cuts to the Arts Faculty of the University – and that some Arts students are having it tough because of their already limited subject selection. As for my opinion, I do understand the resistance against the change since it’s making life harder in general for most Arts students, but at the same time, the implementation of the Melbourne Model would probably benefit more people in the long run (of course, look at it this way – how often do Universities change their education system? :P).
Because I’m too considerate of both sides (and henceforth can’t be bothered to have an opinion), I’m just going to leave a warning for any budding Arts student planning to study here at Melbourne Uni – please do your research, and that’s not just looking up the course and the subjects. Talk to people.
I also find it interesting that there a range of job opportunities within the University itself which allow for a fairly decent income on a casual/part time basis: notetaking or being a personal assistant to disabled students or doing administration and routine work at various departments (not that I’m doing either!). It really alleviates having to look for a job outside of the University and makes life easier for a lot of people. Of course my Access Scholarship pretty much covers all my course fees, but I do need to make ends meet for my extra expenses (not to mention that I had to pay off my second installment of the Telstra T3 shares – there goes half the money in my bank account).
Oh, and to save up for a laptop too *sighs*
If you think that opposing cuts to the Arts Faculty is an extremely left-wing thing, then perhaps you ought to reflect on your own perspective.
Personally, I don’t think that opposing subject cuts is in-itself either extreme[-ist] or left-wing. A laissez faire point of view, often associated with more conservative political persuasions, is also readily applied to the issue of subject choice. That is, a market is not free and nor is choice free if there is no choice. Along those lines, more subjects implies more choice and fewer subjects implies fewer choice.
Also, why do you think the Melbourne Model will be good for the university in the long run? Also consider, is what is good for the university-as-an-institution also necessarily good for its students? Is Curriculum Review necessarily a good thing? After all, isn’t it possible that reforms could make things worse and not better?
Those are a lot of questions and in trying to answer them I think we first need to figure out what education is for, what universities are for and why people go there.
I actually don’t know and never bothered to remember the difference between left and right wing – I think someone said it was left wing =P.
I didn’t say it would be beneficial for the University, but upon speaking to friends overseas it seems that the system of the Melbourne Model is the system that’s implemented in almost every other University in America and Canada – also with our rapidly changing society where more and more people are deferring their first year, I can only see it as more beneficial to the people (of course, I’m aware of the many who have complained that they can’t do what they want because of this) unless you’d like to say otherwise.
I’m aware of the possibility of the change may be for the worse (not to mention that a lot of people seem to jump to that as their reason for opposing the Melbourne Model), but one can’t really predict the future right now. Now that the Model has been implemented, one can only make changes one thinks is necessary for the University to flourish and then step back and let things unravel. Therefore I’m just taking a step back and watching how things goes as a guinea pig of the new Melbourne Model.
Perhaps Melbourne University, as an education institution, and a business, has realised that it is indeed more profitable to streamline its educational offerings. Rather than trying to provide a reasonably good education in many different fields, it is culling subjects in a specific field (namely arts, which attracts less international full-fee students, as compared to, say, commerce – coincidence, i think not) and (attempting to) excel in a smaller number of fields. Sadly, I believe the cold hard truth is that any student who does not wish to study arts will greatly benefit from the Melbourne Model, and current arts students must suffer as a consequence. I think i’ll agree with you matt, and just take a step back and see what happens…
I think people forget that the University of Melbourne is a public institution and a not for profit organisation in the sense that it has no shareholders to pass on its profits. The university budgets for a profit because like any organisation, it does not want to run into debt. In addition, the uni aims to accumulate funds for future projects to protect its status as one of the best universities in Australia. YOU benefit from that reputation.
I don’t see what the problem is here. Many high schools run much the same way. If the uni believes a new building (which costs millions) is required, it does not magically receive 100% of the funding overnight, they need to budget that in.
I am not arguing about the Melbourne Model here, just voicing my opinion that the uni isn’t a money hungry corporate machine trying to exploit people for its own benefit. The university sector is a competitive field and yes I do believe universities are gradually shifting more of the focus on ‘profession’ based education such as commerce and less on the liberal arts but its hard to find a solution given the competitive nature of the world.
If anything, the federal government is to blame, especially the previous government, who cut spending on tertiary education. You can’t blame the universities by trying to ensure its operations are sustainable.
You have all expressed some well-thought out ideas here. But Matthew, you were right in suggesting that many of the opinions expressed in Farrago are vaguely left-ish. They usually go along the lines of ‘Arts faculty subjects promote critical thinking, are valuable in-themselves and are about the reflective soul of society/the nation’. I’m not really aware of any vocal conservative critics of the cuts in the Arts Faculty, but I think that a conservative political mind can also share in the disappointment that many Arts students are facing.
Sarah is also right that the cuts to the Faculty of Arts are in part due to a lack of revenue from international fee-paying students and David is right that this is due to a lack of government funding.
The Vice-Chancellor would disagree with you though, Matthew. He often objects to the way the Melbourne Model is characterised as ‘US-style’ saying that it is based on the Bologna process, a set of European reforms. These however, are still kinda similar to the US system with a couple of differences. I must confess though, I have something of a soft-spot for the single-entry, 4 year undergraduate degrees of the US. The US model really allows a university to define its mission and its purpose, which is hard enough. I also think it’s better from a management perspective since it’s more streamlined and easier to reform (see the nightmare of a teachout that UoM is having, compared to Harvard’s switch from Core to Gen. Ed.). These are advantages that the Melbourne Model just doesn’t have – each degree has a different purpose and the [undergraduate side of the] university has more than 6 different missions.