Monash University > News and Events > Monash Memo

Ancora Imparo, July 2006

As most of you will know, the University of Melbourne has reviewed its education program and has decided to implement a new (for Australia) model, the so-called 'Melbourne Model'. Essentially, the number of undergraduate programs will be reduced to about six. These will be relatively undifferentiated, and most professional courses will be taught as graduate entry. This proposal has received a lot of media attention, and I am often asked whether Monash University intends to move in the same direction. In this month's column, I will discuss the pros and cons of the Melbourne Model and indicate our plans.

The first thing to state is that it is very desirable that more diversity is introduced so that students have more choices. Many students do not know what career they wish to follow at the time they leave school and will appreciate the opportunity of a more general university education before deciding whether they then wish to move into employment, research or a professional field of education such as medicine and other health fields, law, engineering, more specialised areas of business or other professional areas.

Moreover, the model allows those students who were unable to demonstrate the capability to do such courses through their performance at school, whether through lack of motivation or opportunity, to demonstrate that they are capable of completing a demanding professional degree. So it is good that students will have an increased capacity to enter professional courses as graduates.

But should this be the norm in Australia, and should Monash University follow Melbourne's example? My response is no. To justify this statement, I fall back to two first principle tests of what should drive the decision-making in a public university. We exist to serve the needs of students and of the wider community.

The first test, therefore, is "Is it what students want?" As explained in the above paragraphs, it is certainly going to suit some students. But for many others who know what field of professional education they wish to undertake and have demonstrated the ability to complete the course, the requirement to undertake a further three years of study in a general field before competing for entry into their professional field of choice would be a most undesirable imposition. Moreover, despite the ability to compress the professional course when undertaken as a graduate, the total period of study before completing the degree would be prolonged. Even with subsidised (HECS) places transferred to the graduate professional courses, the debt incurred will be greater. In addition, the compressed nature of the professional course undertaken as a graduate (two to four years) will not allow much spare time for part-time or summer vacation employment, again raising equity issues. The compressed nature of the course will allow little time for lateral extension, elective study or time off for travel or other broadening experiences.

There may also be an adverse impact on research in professional areas. After seven years or so of study and a further prolonged period of in-service training in some areas such as medicine, few graduates will wish to pursue research training. This is very evident in North America, where very few medical graduates enter research or academic medicine. Finally, one wonders whether in an era of rapid technological development, where 'upskilling' and retraining often at university level will be required throughout professional lifetimes, it is a good idea for most students to prolong the initial period of university education following secondary school.

From the community point of view, there would also be problems if the Melbourne Model were to be generalised. The total period of university education before professional training is complete would be prolonged. Even though a major component of cost now falls on the students, there are also costs for the community through the government subsidy of the places and of Commonwealth Supported Places. The longer period of training will also exacerbate workforce shortages in many areas including medicine, nursing and other health sciences and engineering.

A word of clarification. When first discussed, the Melbourne Model was conflated with the Bologna Process. The Bologna Process does not require that professional degrees are at graduate level -- indeed most professional courses were specifically excluded from the discussion. The Bologna Process is designed to give some degree of uniformity and interchangeability between the degrees awarded in different countries in Europe and also to improve quality control of university education. The guidelines require three years of study for a bachelors degree, and an additional two years for a masters degree and three years for a PhD. There are many exceptions (for example, an alternative four plus one model for bachelors and masters degrees), and making the degrees at Monash University 'Bologna compatible' would be a relatively simple matter. The Melbourne Model follows more closely the established North American model.

So Monash University welcomes the Melbourne Model but will not be following it. 

This is not to imply that we will not be looking at our current educational offerings and improving them. Professor Stephen Parker, the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor who has responsibility for the education portfolio, will be overseeing a major review of our coursework programs next year.

We feel there is a need to simplify our range of programs at undergraduate level. We will provide more opportunities for graduates of other courses to enter our professional courses (options for this are already available and will be extended by our graduate-entry medical program at our Gippsland campus). We must also continue to evolve our process of internationalising the curricula, leverage more advantage from our international campuses and networks and provide better access programs for students who have had limited educational opportunity. We must also continue to respond to student and employer feedback to optimise the content and quality of our courses and units.

University education is a rapidly evolving area, and all universities should have processes for continually reviewing, improving and modernising their programs in the best interests of students and the community.

Richard Larkins
Vice-Chancellor