Balanced Comparison

One of the University's 'Back for Seconds' bloggers, Suzanne, has an excellent post up comparing New Generation and Heritage/Continuing degrees. Her analysis is balanced and fair, pointing out both the advantages and disadvantages faced by students under both models.

The only point that causes me some confusion is her reference to scholarship money. The National Scholarship has, for a long time, funded both HECS and provided an allowance ($5000 for Victorians and $10,000 for interstate students). The maintenance of such an excellent scholarship program in the face of economic downturn and fickle governance and regulation is to be applauded.

Her last point was also quite amusing:

"Student centres! Whose brilliant idea was it to make Music share a student centre with Arts, and to put the whole thing ages away in Old Arts, replacing the perfectly functional administrative centre at the front office inside the Music building?"

The merger between Music and Arts Faculty Offices/Student Centres looks to be both a cost-cutting measure and a bureaucratic cleaning job. Considering how underresourced the Student Centre is, imagine if the same resources were split over two faculties?

Sometimes I wish I was a few years older or younger, so I could have done my degree(s) and gotten out before all of this or come in after the dust has settled.

Review your curriculum...

Close your books...

SUPRA takes on the Melbourne Model

SUPRA has published a critique of the Melbourne Mode in the latest edition of Honi Soit. It raises standard points, such as income support, public transport concession cards and the exploitation of students for fee-income.

But most interestingly, it discusses USyd's SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats, coincidentally its acronym is a homophone of the acronym for Special Weapons and Tactics). USyd apparently thinks that it is already pretty good at offering graduate entry programmes and even has some initiatives in place to offset some of the problems of postgraduate study, such as access to income support.

The Melbourne Model seems to be receiving a somewhat icy reception in Australian Higher Ed. It is generally a feared thing in popular press and opinion thanks to its association with subject cuts, staff cuts and blatant money-grabbing. The only university that seems to be considering copying it is UWA and it is my estimation that they will be going for something subtly but significantly different.

Review your curriculum...

Close your books...

Transitional Blogging

I didn't know that the University of Melbourne has transitional bloggers. They've got entries on the demotion of Paul Mees as well as the study cycle. There is a first year site as well as a second year + site.

There's also an interesting, if a little bit dated, post about Farrago. The author, who distances himself from the Liberal Party by claiming to be a Labor voter, says that it is "as though a bunch of hippies have been trying to brainwash me with the ‘anti-Glyn Davis’ bible." I have the suspicion that his position is not uncommon and he clearly isn't writing from an official perspective, since he doesn't make the point that the 'Arts cuts' are related to a structural deficit in the Faculty and not any recommendations from the Curriculum Review or Melbourne Model implementation. It is certainly a position that is worth taking into account and he is absolutely correct that the Faculty of Arts is not the only one in the University.

Review your curriculum...

Close your books...

"It's Harvard, Darling..."

Harvard is to receive very large sums of philanthropic support:

David M. Rockefeller ’36, the grandson of the famous oil magnate and a longtime Harvard benefactor, has donated $100 million to the University.
[...]
Seventy percent of the gift will be devoted to international programs, and the remaining portion will be used to fund arts programs, The Times reported. Harvard will not receive the $100 million until Rockefeller's death but will receive $2.5 million per year until then, meaning that the total value of the donation could end up being well over $100 million.

The donation comes as the Committee on University Resources, which is composed of individuals who have given $1 million or more to Harvard, convenes at the Charles Hotel this weekend.

It would be very nice to have an extra $2.5 million per year, with the promise of $100 million bequest. That kind of money could easily save the Faculty of Arts from its future budget deficit. But unfortunately, the extraordinary wealth and fundraising ability of Harvard is not making the implementation of Harvard's new curriculum of General Education, set to replace Rosovsky's Core, much easier.

In fact, members of the Class of 2012 have to choose between the two curricula and many don't know what is going on:

Members of the Class of 2012 may need to decide between these two curricula early in their academic careers. Only 13 courses so far have been approved to “double-count,” or fulfill both Core and Gen Ed requirements. Nine double-counting courses will be offered next academic year.
[...]
OUT OF THE LOOP

The Class of 2012 has received little information—if any—about the transition.

When incoming freshman Roshane B. Campbell of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. was asked about the curriculum change, he said, “I actually don’t know what’s going on.”

The 50-page Admissions Office brochure mailed to prospective students this year mentions Gen Ed once. On page 15, it reads, “The faculty is developing a new and distinctive program of General Education.”

This sounds very familiar. It would be nice though, if someone, somewhere knew how to implement a curriculum review smoothly.

Review your curriculum...

Close your books...