News & Views item - April 2007

 

 

One Thing Steven Smith and Julie Bishop Have in Common is that in Describing the Melbourne Model as Following the American System they Really Don't Know What they're Talking About. (April 17, 2007)

    When the vice-chancellor of The University of Melbourne, Glyn Davis undertook to revamp the curriculum, he pointed to such schools as The University of California, Berkeley as a model for what he was attempting to create at Melbourne -- after all it was a public university, has a similar number of students to Melbourne, and was and is ranked as one of the world's leading research universities.

 

And as the killer extreme makeover the Melbourne Model would produce a university predominately of graduate students, i.e. about two-thirds.

 

The university put out the following diagram of the Model.

 

 

Now whether or not Professor Davis' university eventually joins the likes of  Berkeley, ranked 4th by the Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, or even the University of Wisconsin, Madison, ranked, 16th remains to be seen, but as Vladimir and Estragon pointed out a year and a half ago it won't have anything to do with the contortions of developing the Melbourne Model.

 

First of all the "Cambridge Model" and the "Berkeley Model" are very different as regards the handling of their undergraduates, but in both cases their percentage of undergraduates is virtually identical, ~70%.

 

The table set out for Vladimir and Estragon in November 2005 would be little changed now and yet we have the shadow minister for education, Steven Smith quoted today as saying, "Moving to a graduate-style school as occurs in the US and Europe is the University of Melbourne's response to that challenge."

 

Well, see what you think. Check out the table below (formulated in November 2005).

 

 

University Type Undergraduate students Graduate students % Undergraduates SJTU* Ranking Endowment US$ M

 University of Melbourne

 Public 25,100 8,500 75 82 --
 University of California, Berkeley Public 22,800 9.300 71 4 2,037
 University of Michigan, Ann Arbour Public 25,000 14,000 64 21 4,900
 Indiana University, Bloomington Public 27,800 7,900 78 87 --
 Ohio State University, Columbus Public 37,400 13,100 74 43 1,600
 University of Wisconsin, Madison Public 29,000 13,000 69 16 --
 University of Washington, Seattle Public 31,000 12,000 72 17 1,330
 University of Cambridge Public 11,800 4,700 71 2 --

 
 Harvard University Private 6,650 13,000 34 1 25,900
 Stanford University Private 6,650 7,800 46 3 12,400

 

Mr Smith, however, did also say, "The approach taken by the University of Melbourne is not suitable for all Australian universities, indeed it may not be suitable for any other Australian university, but it is Melbourne's response to the pursuit of academic excellence and how it believes it can carve out a national and international role for itself."

 

The fact of the matter? Changing the "model" doesn't address the problems of second rate infrastructure, unwarranted administrative responsibilities and excessive teaching loads which leads to increasing difficulties in attracting and keeping staff of top quality.

 

Substantial increases in funding together with a reviving of governmental support does. That is the essence in the differing approaches of Cambridge's Allison Richard and Melbourne's Glyn Davis.

 

Whether or not Labor under Kevin Rudd, should they win office, will develop an environment conducive for overcoming the scarring the universities have received from 11 years of Coalition rule remains problematic.