'My' university has just unveiled a rather radical plan to adopt the US-style model of tertiary education in which students complete their first degree in a general area and follow it with a two-three year specialist qualification. Most Australian universities follow this model for medical degrees, but otherwise it's pretty unusual. I can see some positives - I think it would mean more students doing history (and other humanities) subjects, and working hard at them because they have a clear goal in mind that requires good grades. That would be great, and would also mean more jobs for postgrads and early career academics in the humanities! But the downside is that most of these specialist courses would only be available to full-fee-paying students. Not great.
I'm reminded of some toilet grafitti I read (stick with me here!) which debated the 'ownership' of universities. One participant in the debate was arguing that students had the right to determine university policy because they 'owned' the unis. The other participant responded that it was the academics who actually owned the universities, because they were doing the really important work. If I had fewer qualms about defacing property, I would have added a third opinion: universities belong to the community. I believe they exist to serve the community of which they are a part, and university policy-makers always need to ask questions about how policies will affect that community. I don't mean by that (obviously) that just because almost everybody I speak to at parties thinks my thesis topic is pointless (OK, maybe I'm just paranoid, but some people have come out and said it!) that I shouldn't be allowed to work on it at community expense. But I do think I have a responsibility to use my learning for the community's benefit, not just as a matter of personal development. And I don't think policies that encourage the university to perpetuate inequality (only people from wealthy families can become doctors/lawyers) are good for the community.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out...
I'm reminded of some toilet grafitti I read (stick with me here!) which debated the 'ownership' of universities. One participant in the debate was arguing that students had the right to determine university policy because they 'owned' the unis. The other participant responded that it was the academics who actually owned the universities, because they were doing the really important work. If I had fewer qualms about defacing property, I would have added a third opinion: universities belong to the community. I believe they exist to serve the community of which they are a part, and university policy-makers always need to ask questions about how policies will affect that community. I don't mean by that (obviously) that just because almost everybody I speak to at parties thinks my thesis topic is pointless (OK, maybe I'm just paranoid, but some people have come out and said it!) that I shouldn't be allowed to work on it at community expense. But I do think I have a responsibility to use my learning for the community's benefit, not just as a matter of personal development. And I don't think policies that encourage the university to perpetuate inequality (only people from wealthy families can become doctors/lawyers) are good for the community.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out...
No comments:
Post a Comment