Discussions of the "Melbourne Model" and Reality. (June 14, 2006)

Professor Glyn Davis

    This past Saturday The Age published extensive contribution by David Rood and Adam Morton, "A new way of learning" describing the changes that Melbourne University Vice-Chancellor Glyn Davis is working to implement beginning in 2008, the so-called "Melbourne Model".

On March 5, 2006 TFW wrote, "In [the Melbourne Model's] current state of development students would be offered up to five generalist strands of undergraduate programs, including arts, science and humanities, but there would be a de-emphasis on undergraduate teaching with Professor Davis suggesting that the proportion of graduate to undergrade students would reach the proportions current at Harvard which has probably the highest in the world.

The March News and Views item contrasted the changes that Harvard's President, Lawrence Summers was attempting to institute at Harvard University and points out, "One of Summers' principal goals was to remake the undergraduate curriculum with the avowed objective of having Harvard graduates more knowledgeable, particularly in the sciences.

Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism wrote in the March 6 issue of Time, "Summers was right that Harvard and other universities need to provide more structured education for undergrads."

And in an article by Campbell, et al. in the February 24 issue of Science they pointed out "Most undergraduates are taught the same way their instructors were taught, which seldom reflects leading-edge research practices. Training faculty in the latest research methods is not well supported on most campuses. Worse yet, when students with outdated undergraduate science experiences become primary and secondary school teachers, they condemn future generations to inadequate preparation for college. Today's teachers may also neglect the more quantitative aspects and increased interdisciplinary involvement of modern biology." While molecular biology was the specific subject under discussion, the points being made are applicable to many subjects and not only in the sciences.

What is critical is that both Summers and Campbell, et al. are addressing the importance of undergraduate teaching in the subjects that are to be the active interest of those who will undertake graduate studies and /or those who will undertake primary and secondary school teaching. This is an area that has been utterly neglected by by those discussing the "Melbourne Model".

In most of the United State's research universities, whether private or state, the first two years (freshman and sophomore) require the taking of a number of liberal arts courses but those intending to go on to graduate studies must take courses leading to the advanced courses in the subjects they intend to pursue. So for example if in pursuit of a degree in classics you must take one year of a science, perhaps you choose Physics 1, 2, 3. They are dead-end courses. If you intend to take more advanced courses in physics (say in your third and fourth years as an undergraduate the prerequisite sequence is Physics 21, 22, 23, and if you're a student at Harvard, UC-Berkeley, Stanford or Princeton, just to name four, there is a very good chance that one or more of your instructors will be a Nobel Laureate.

The quality of undergraduate teaching is of utmost importance and it will increase in importance with the passing years. Larry Summers may be about to relinquish his Harvard presidency but the significant changes to the undergraduate curriculum will continue. And in all probability comparable changes will be taking place in the best of the US' research universities.

If Professor Davis is serious about morphing Melbourne University into one of the elite, he has got a lot more to do than developing a half-dozen undergraduate liberal arts streams and a graduate student proportion above 50% -- a figure reached by only two of the universities in the table below (both private), and in fact quite an unnecessary goal.

On November 30, 2005 TFW had Vladimir and Estragon discuss the "Melbourne Model" in Ay But Who Will Pay For It. It concluded with:

V: And what about the "Americanisation" of universities' curricula?

 

E: Well, Vladimir, look at it this way, the fact that Cambridge and Oxford are ranked 2 and 10 by Shanghai Jiao Tong University and they most certainly are not "Americanised" suggests that Americanisation is not a necessary condition to gain the heights.

    On the other hand top staff, good infrastructure, and enough time for academics do their job properly and think, that's another matter.