Why the Melbourne Model makes no sense to me (Suzanne)
Finished my PPL essay yesterday, so I’ve decided that I deserve a day of procrastination, even though I have my LMR essay due on Monday.
Anyway. This morning, I open the paper, and I find a newspaper article which says that because the uni’s worried about losing talented students after the Melbourne Model switch, they’re going to offer a $2500 for all applicants with a …score thingy (I did IB so I don’t know what it’s actually called. The score thingy out of 100 that you apply to uni with) of over 98, and that it’ll waive all HECS and give an additional $5000 allowance to anyone with a score thingy of over 99.90.
At this point, I should mention that I had an IB equivalent to a score thingy of 99.95. Therefore, I am annoyed, because if I’d applied one year later, I wouldn’t have had to pay HECs fees. Damn you, Melbourne Model.
Personal gripes aside, the whole switch thing makes no sense to me. The point is to move to a more US style university system, and this is where I have problems with their reasoning. See, the vast majority of my friends back home went to the US. I applied there myself before the absolutely shocking price tag and a series of university rejections persuaded me to come here instead. In my experience, and I’m the type of person who does incredibly extensive research on things like university life, down to the colour of socks most prevalent on campus, before I ever apply to anything, the Melbourne Model has a number of features that are actually contrary to the spirit of a US style liberal arts education.
The most obvious one of these is the fact that they’re cutting double degrees. Yes, generally, in the US, you do mostly take single rather than double degrees. But the fact is, that these single degrees are usually so broad that they’re the equivalent of taking double or triple or completely faculty-less degree. I have a friend doing a Bachelor of Arts. With a double major in Chemical Engineering and Japanese. I have a cousin doing a Bachelor of Arts in environmental science (more like the science or engineering degree here than any arts based environmental studies program), but with an extensive literature and humanities focus. I have more friends doing music, but at the same time fulfilling science prerequisites for medical school admission. One of the biggest strengths, and what I like best about the US tertiary education system, is that you can combine the weirdest and most starkly contrasting subjects together in a double major, and this doesn’t seem to be transferring over to the Melbourne system — I don’t see anything in any of the literature that I’ve looked at referring to the possibility of majoring in chemistry as a BA student like my friend at UC Berkeley is doing, or having a Bachelor of Science degree in music composition or linguistics like kids at MIT can do.
And although single degrees are most common in the American system, there is actually still a very flexible double degree system in place, especially with music schools and engineering schools. It’s the same kind of thing that happens with music/arts or engineering/arts here, except that the term ‘arts’ really means ‘arts/science’ in the US. You can even have double degrees between different universities, such as the Tufts/New England Conservatory, or the Juilliard/Columbia arrangements. It makes absolutely no sense to me to cut double degrees — in fact, if you really want to get the benefits of the broad education found in the US system, you want to expand double degrees, not cut them.
The second point is with the cutting of gender studies at undergraduate level. When I applied to the US, I always got the feeling that gender studies was one of those subjects most often found in liberal arts colleges — small universities with no graduate departments at all. Interdisciplinary subjects were things that were very much encouraged at undergrad level. I honestly do not see the logic in cutting the subject.
Really, for the most part I agree with the idea behind the changes. I like the idea of having a broader education, more time to choose, and moving law to a graduate system (honestly, I don’t think most kids fresh out of high school, myself included, are equipped to handle law. The kids in my law classes are brilliant, insightful, and for the most part, mature, but sometimes I really think we’d get so much more out of class if we’d all had a few years more experience with critical reading, writing, and research before having to read and evaluate cases. And the large number of people who are in law just because they got the mark or couldn’t think of anything else to do doesn’t seem particularly healthy to me — some of them would probably really benefit from having more time and advice before jumping into a degree with a relatively inflexible structure). I just don’t really like the way it’s been implemented. Broadening an education system just doesn’t work if you limit the choices and combinations of concentrations students can have. That’s not the point of the US system, and it shouldn’t be the point here.
Ah, what the heck. I’m just sour that I could have avoided HECS fees.
Any thoughts or comments from the floor?
I can understand the Melbourne Model /Growing Esteem changes in some respects. The move towards a US-style education is necessary in some regards. University has become for Australians something that you do, if you’re ‘smart’. In Year 12 there was a fairly clear division, and this was actually encouraged by the teachers, as to who would apply for university (the majority) and who would either go to TAFE or get jobs. Only those who were truly struggling and barely passing VCE were encouraged towards the last two options.
I think that the fact that most of the people in my year level applied for university places (and most got their first or second choice) says two things: my year level was smart, and that university places are incredibly easy to come by.
A major thing I noticed in my first year was a huge number of brats who seemed to be at university for no real reason. They would float around, be disruptive, involve themselves heavily in the social side of uni but not much else. People who had either gotten high enter scores and thought “What the hell? I have nothing better to do for three years” or people whose parents placed such emphasis on tertiary education that they paid for their child to be there whether they wanted it or not.
My Dad told me a little while ago that unless I managed an honours year, my Arts degree would not be worth much on paper – instead of competing for jobs against people with no qualifications, the saturation of Australian universities means that I would be competing for job with other graduates and thus gaining little advantage. I think it depends on the job, and I have since realised that what I will be gaining from this degree is less a piece of paper and more three years of learning.
But it is still a little disconcerting to have a university education commonplace – call me an elitist brat, but not everybody who can get an enter score or can pay their way should be allowed in.
Having said all that, I have no idea whether the Melbourne Model and the shift towards US style education has anything to do with stricter entrance requirements!
The Melbourne Model is interesting and I would be writing an essay comment if I were to type out all my opinions. But just a quick point, the new model would mean that aspiring law students (and other students wishing to continue onto graduate school) would have to study even harder for top marks which may assist them in gaining a place in law school. This, in turn would lift the standard and competition throughout the university. This is just a small factor as the model has many pros and cons but I think the model would benefit Melbourne Uni as a whole.
I agree with you about being annoyed at the scholarship benefits for people who get over 98. Firstly, because if I’d deferred I would have gotten $2500, which frankly, is pretty tempting.
However, I’m mainly disappointed that the uni is so afraid of losing the top students that they’ve resorted to bribes. Education should be able to exist separately from money (I know that’s an idealist statement), and I think that all this money would be much better spent elsewhere. It’s going to be interesting to see what the demand is for places at the end of the year.