Standing Committee on Employment, Education
and Workplace Relations
This document has been scanned from the original printed submission.
It may contain some errors
Submission 69
Subject: Appropriate roles
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:19:02 +1 100
From: Grant McCall <G.McCall@unsw.edu.au>
To: eet.reps@aph.gov.au
REF: Appropriate roles of Institutes of Technical and Further Education
Recent trends in university funding and enrolments in Australia suggest
that it is time for the tertiary sector and its intentions and character
be thoroughly rethought.
The Australian goal of wide-spread university enrolment seems to have
come from the USA experience where there are over 5,000 institutions bearing
the name "University" according to the usual reference works.
Yet, Americans typically refer to their universities as their "schools"
which, I suggest, is more than a rhetorical convention. Usually documented
from the provisions for veterans of World War II, university education
was seen as a kind of reward for service and enrolments soared. At the
same time, "universities" as many of these institutions were
called, diversified from the usual academic subjects into areas that clearly
were vocational, even technical, such as building, undertaking (funeral
directors) and the like. When the USA system settled down, there broadly
was a two tier system of four year institutions and two year institutions.
In the latter case, people could do the first two years of their typical
four year course at one of these local tertiary institutions, as well
as complete trade and technical qualifications. Universities tended to
take on all the other training options.
This idea of two year local institutions and all encompassing univeresities
has been floated as a model in Australia since the Fraser government,
but never has taken hold.
I would call it the "all in one" model.
The second model is derived from European experience and I would call
it the "horses for courses" model.
In "horses for courses", there are, depending upon the European
country considered, several paths of higher education, university being
one of them. There are equally prestigious technical institutions where
trades and other professions are taught and there is no sense of an hierarchy
amongst these alternatives.
My central submission is that your enquiry should direct its questions
not so much to the American "all in one" model, but to the European
"horses for courses" one. I am not convinced that simply because
Australia has adopted so many American cultural and commercial practices,
that we should necessarily follow their educational ones as well. There
is wide-spread dissatisfaction in the USA with their educational system
and I would imagine that people there would find it amusing that we even
consider some of their options.
Europe, and by that I mean the "European Community" is in the
process of renovating and reformulating its educational system so as to
achieve regional standards. It is there, in that debate, that we might
find some answers for Australia.
I urge the committee to study EU proposals for educational structure
to see their potential for application in Australia. Please forgive my
very late submission, but I have been away. Your letter of 30 October
suggests that late submissions may be considered.
Grant McCall Telephone:(61+2) 9385-2408
School of Sociology FAX: (61+2) 9313-7859
The University of New South Wales e-mail: g.mccall@unsw.edu.au
Sydney NSW 2052 -- Australia
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/schools/sociology/schsoc.htm
Back to top