[User has been suspended 1 week for defamation]

-- Forum Moderator

As one who has gained a history and politics degree during his retirement as well as an elective in macro-economics as part of a post-grad in geographical politics and history, and as a free-thinker, there is much concern about the lack of historical and philosophical knowledge these days, not only in the young, but also in our politicians, including our present Prime Minister.

An example is the meagre knowledge of British and American incursions into the Middle East since WW1. This is especially so since the Anglophilist illegal occupation of Iraq, as many political philosophers are now calling it. Indeed, it seems that our leaders these days, including the Americans, seem to be so wary of encouraging the discussion of Middle East problems based on past historical accounts from proven writers.

The worry is that particularly in the Schools of Humanities, that potential students will be warned off as being unpatriotic for them to be involved in such studies. Better to study the precepts of neo-liberal style marketing, allied with the so intriguing dot-com means of communication as well as what even Maynard Keynes predicted, the coming thrill of casino capitalism.

Maybe certain lecturers do appear to be not following the line of government reasoning concerning the Middle East crisis right now, but the proof is there that they have a thorough knowledge of past events, which surely must be encouraged in young people bright enough to be among our future leaders.

Finally it is obvious the only way to gain a knowledge of past events, as the great Roman historian Tacitus exuded, is to read about those past events, and not from the hearsayers nor from our leaders, but from the masters.

George C, WA - Bushbred

To say that all should have a PHD is ludicrous.

I as a university student who has finished 3 years ago, and although industries are different I found that Academics did not teach me as well as those hardened industry people. They have been in the cut throat world and conquered, which holds more weight than a person sheltered in Academia.

I respect gratefully the PHD, and on the surface I can see your feelings as an academic, but many of the most prudent, savvy and intelligent people did not attain a few bits of paper that enables them to perform the role, they have the nouse to do it.

My best lecturer by far was someone who was out there at the coal face, was successful in the real world (which is far more competitive and not a level playing field, which further illustrates his ability) and can now go back and give something to his students, first hand.

'Experience & Expertise' I would rather someone build me a boat who has built many boats before, than one who has got a piece of paper to say they can.

There are plenty like me who has intitutionalised people telling me that uni was the only way to succeed in life, and even then, i never was taught how to own the ladder, just climb it, they taught me how to be a soldier and work in the corporate army.

Remember small businesses are growing exponentially in Australia, yet that does not correlate to universities flavouring thier curriculum with it. Society is changing, students needs are changing, are Academic's mindsets?

If i was a Software guy, I would much rather be taught from Bill Gates the drop out, than any other person with any amount of PHD's.

If your passion is academia, research should come with the territory. If you dont want to do it, dont. If it is medoicrity you are worried about perhaps academics should only research instead of teach. Leave the inspiring to those who have run the marathon, not those that have read about it.

Tara,

mmm.. where to start?

1. So what about lecturers who are already good teachers and who are appreciated by students and other colleagues. Should they suffer a year or so of learning about Piaget, Blooms taxonomy and how to make paper boats and sing nursery rhymes?

2. Most good lectures are already feeding current research into their content and assessment. They already do research and it’s applied. It’s called 'teaching'.
But I’m someone that reckons good teaching inform good research.
The trickle down effect of research into teaching is ok as long as the research funding is there. Have you ever got a sore bum and computer headaches from writing proposals after proposals after proposals Tara? As for research frameworks they do exist here in Oz. See: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/policies_issues_reviews/key_issues/research_quality_framework/rqf_preferred_model.htm

3. Doctorates do make for good scholarship (sometimes) but more than often you want someone in lecture theatres who can inspire students to learn and present them with real world perspectives. Having a clone of a doctoral supervisor trying to find themselves after a few years of trying to write (give birth to?) a thesis no one will ever read won't produce good teachers.

Overall, your ideas have some merit but I think a few semesters of teaching classes of 500 students would bring you back down to mother earth. I give you 18 out of 30 which is a pass grade

It is easier to learn the practical side of things in the workplace than in university. University is there to teach you the fundamental theory behind your discipline, which helps to develop generic skills such as problem solving. I had to learn higher mathematics such as differential equations, laplace and fourier transforms at uni. How often do you think that I would have to use them in the workplace? Doesn’t matter it developed problem solving skills which are needed in the workplace. Academics are the only people suitable to teach the theory; you will learn the practical side of things in the workplace.

From one who has spent most of his 85 years battling in the bush, where you do learn a few things, especially in bush pubs, a few years in the military also encouraging one the better to be a free thinker. But to the forum contributors, did not intend to steer opinions the wrong way.

But what one does find it tough to learn, is what should be happening in world affairs. Again, as the Roman historian Tacitus implied, it is not from life experience, nor from leaders from whom we learn about the mistakes in history, but from the masters.

Tacitus was referring mainly to the Ancient Greeks, from whose thinking, incidently, we have our democracies. So please give credit to publications like the Great Books and suchlike, which do give examples of the gains and misgains of politics and history.

Most of our politicians, including both Howard and Beasley should take time to read such books a bit more, where they would learn far more than they ever would through life, as well as political experience.

George C, WA - Bushbred

C'mon Mech!

You need 50 to pass at university, p's get degrees, yet go and do a 50% job in life, and see where you land.

Tell me the only brightest and best in Universities get PHD's.......not on your life.

Many of the brightest free thinkers get to a level where university ends up a waiting game they are tied to until they complete thier studies. Many cant wait this institutionalisation out, quit in dissolusion, or feel university cannot offer any more, or need to earn money.

If you have more respect for those with PHD's than those who have achieved in life, i know why you are an engineer. I bet you are a good corporate soldier, and if you have finished (which by your attitude you may still be at Uni) I bet you are working in a nice cosy mediocre place. PHD's do not correlate to success, your drive does.

As a qualified person, lets look at this. The top students from my course are now in mediocre roles with large companies, research, etc etc. This is what they are conditioned to do, so how bright are they?
I was from the bush, forced to work to survive, study only when i could. I passed, but i was not tested on my IQ or my intelligence EVER.

Funny though, these people now ring me for advice. Its the ability to harness your knowledge and apply it with real world skills - what academics don't teach. Achievers understand this.

Ability is not learnt in the classroom. It is meant to be harnessed. Look at those students with the gleam in the eye, the drive, not those with the most study hours under their belt. It is your responsibility as a lecturer to ensure you know who your cream are. At least those who are achievers, with 'experience' not 'expertise' understand and can perhaps find those better, and stop them slipping through the cracks. Many of these are not doing it for the pay either, they have enough to accept the modest return for their efforts.

Realist,

"If you have more respect for those with PhD’s than those who have achieved in life, I know why you are an engineer."

This is incorrect and off the mark. All I was saying is they are the most suitable people for teaching the theory to uni students.

What do you define as a mediocre role?

"It’s the ability to harness your knowledge and apply it with real world skills - what academics don't teach. Achievers understand this."

Are you implying that researchers such as those with PhDs are not achievers?

Are you saying that they don’t harness there knowledge to solve real world problems like; developing artificial skin for burns victims or mechanical hearts for people waiting for a heart transplant?.

"I was from the bush, forced to work to survive, study only when I could. I passed, but I was not tested on my IQ or my intelligence EVER."

I to have worked in the bush on many large resource projects but what’s that got to do with this?
Nothing personal but your arguments are fragmented, erratic and lack precision.

Tara,

Impressed by your enthusiam and high standards (though wish you hadn't written "The final issue I ask of academics is even more ostracised ...").

If we have a system for measuring quality and results as you suggest do we need to worry so much about the level of qualifications of the teachers ? If someone with a master's degree is getting good results, what's the problem ?

Hmm,

I think it's interesting that our Mr Timken has been suspended from this forum for so-called defamation. It's funny that, given all the name calling and maligning that he has suffered and endured for simply posting his opinions on line here that he's the one singled out for punishment.

Anyway, if you're reading this Timken, hold the faith mate, I know you'll be back and with a vengeance and I'm looking forward to it.

Maximus, your post is completely off thread, but needs to be answered. Timkins hasn't been "singled out". He posted comments that were defamatory and they were removed. It's our policy to note the removal of any posts and the reason. We do this so that interruptions to threads caused by comments being removed have an explanation. We also do it for transparency and to deter breaches of the rules. Anyone else who does the same thing as Timkins did will be dealt with in the same way.

I do agree that at least a one-year DipEd should be required for University lecturers, as some of those I had to sit through were utterly appalling, and clearly could not be bothered teaching "firsties" (this was a few years ago, but not many!)

From my chats with quite a few of my lecturers over the years, I found a general frustration with the way their research was quantified and counted, more than a reluctance to do it. Many of the lecturers I spoke to said that "amount" rather than "quality" was what counted with Uni Admin, so editing a 'collection' on a particular subject counted just as much as actually writing the whole book. One lecturer commented that she really wanted to write a 'dictionary', showing how certain academic terms changed their meaning in different diciplines, noting that this would be really useful to students, but that there was no point in her putting in the time and effort, as it simply would not be counted towards her 'output' and she would be 'counselled' about using her time effectively.

Also, while some students do have a "meh, books" attitude, I found that most people I went to Uni with, when they found the course that suited them (not the one they were pressured into, or thought would get them a 'decent job'), really did like researching and learning (well, if you ask them outside of the exam period!).

Like anything else, Universities about about economics. The ability to recruit academics and keep them on governs much of what Tara is talking about. The difficulty that Australian Universities have in keeping good academics and researchers is spelt out quite firmly in her artcile.

But why do Australian Universities keep these academics in positions where their students are more qualified? It's because they have little choice. To narrow the criteria for the selection of academic staff only magnifies the aforesaid problems.

Academic staff for Universities are in high demand internationally, and Australian Universities struggle to compete with the salaries which can be offered by institutions in the United States and the United Kingdom. The criteria governing what is an acceptable level of qualification for academic staff is thus narrowed. In fact as an undergraduate Civil Engineer I am often given supervisors who have not yet completed a PhD, nor are they in the process of earning one.

Just as the USA and UK headhunt our own academics, it is not uncommon for Australian institutions to headhunt academics from countries that perhaps the USA or UK would not consider. This can fill the voids in staff numbers certainly, however engineering students in particular have a tendency to be less tolerant of lecturers/supervisors who sometimes struggle with the English associated with such a technical area. Don't get me wrong, these academics have been hired for their expertise and knowledge in a particular area. However it is far more important that these people have the fluency to convey and share their knowledge with the people who will one day be healing our sick, building our cities, defining our future and defending our criminals (apologies to the Law Department).

In no way can Australian Universities narrow the criteria for the hiring of academics until we have the capacity to attract the academics we seek in the first place.

Laurie, Thanks for your post, it’s prompted me to drag out my favorite beef about the traditional lecture, tutorial, examination approach to teaching.

And for me its this. Simply put, this format is not working for many lecturers and students alike.

One important reason is that many Australian university students have paid employment during semester and find themselves working an average of 20 hours per week.

They want (or are being forced) to want knowledge like you order a burger at McDonalds. Neatly packaged and easily digestible.

Gone are the days when the good old approach of laying out knowledge and engaging with students meaningfully - when university life was a mix of lectures, tutes and debates over coffee. The culture and subcultures of student learning has changed dramatically.

But somewhere between commodifying knowledge for easy access and consumption and those fine traditions of 'teaching students how to think critically about content and theory" a balance must be struck.

Otherwise we will see Mc-lecturers being delivered to students who will end up with Mc-jobs. In fact it’s already happening

if you are studying a university course to learn a vocational skill like dentistry do you want a theoretically brilliant lecturer or do you want a skilled craftsman who can pass on their manual skills and techniques as well as theory?

The trend towards publish or perish is coupled with the rise of the published lecturer delivering lectures to 200 students and managing a team of 20 lowly paid, low status and perhaps barely qualified demonstrators and tutors who have hands on teaching with the students.

Then we can discuss how good a PhD is. In the United States a PhD is a broad range of coursework subjects plus a thesis. In Australia a PhD is a narrow band of study. It can be argued that Australian PhDs in IT produce a very narrow body of knowledge of lower knowledge level than the average industry experienced IT professional.

Then we can discuss the content of the specialist Dip Ed's mandatory at Monash University for all lecturers and ask how research methods subjects allow the teacher to deliver more effective lectures and tutorials. I think that qualification is more effective in getting teh acadedmics published at education conferences than making lectures more entertaining dynamic and educationally worthwhile.

Do university students expect to be breaking the grounds of new knowledge which may involve learning crack pot theories that may later be debunked or are they interested in getting a job?

Sex over study - I say:

When I was a budding young uni student I was in to many things and this included visiting American coeds. This expanded my academic reach no end.

These gals were more sexually demanding and adventurous than their Australian sisters, but nothing compared to the kiwis!

In terms of obtaining value for money from our scarce educational resources I think it crucial that sexual possibilities be uppermost in an academic's mind.

Sex has always been a fair exchange for good marks. But that is not the only reason I got my HD's.

Now I'm not saying that sexual over-adequacy defines a nation or its history completely, but its something all serious (personal) gigolos (PGs) should consider.

The weltschauung of the dedicated gigolo can indeed change the course of history.

As a government funded research topic, one could put up an argument that Australia's own socio-sexual sophistication was "boosted" (so to speak) by American serviceman, "oversexed, overhere and over her" in World War Two. It wasn't only that Americans were paid more and better uniformed than their Australian comrades, its just that these Yanks used charm rather than just "You wanna?"

Several books have been written on this subject but the research interests of the (personal) gigolo demand yet more government funding.

Meanwhile, other educational priorities can remain on the backburner of the "less sexy".

Appreciate your argument, Realist, but is it really realistic to follow an economic doctrine that was thrown out by Maynard Keynes to save the world from the financial policies that caused the crash of 1929. It was Keynes who warned that if the liberal freemarket system. or economic rationalism was again taken up, the only way to keep the economy temporarily out of trouble was to keep finance moving whether honestly or dishonestly, what many university economic teachers now term casino capitalism.

No one wants full-blown socialism, but if many more of the big corporates go bust like ENRON and others, while the ones still alive are being supported by mostly naive investors who treat making money like backing racehorses, we could wonder what our great-great grandkids are going to inherit?

As one who grew up in the bush and was poorly educated, it is something one does remember- that the average farmer and ordinary shopkeeper, etc, must keep away from the big league, encouraging even the middle-roaders to protect their futures by joining together either in unions or active lobby-groups, looking for advice from genuine economic historians.

As Keynes would say and even as many modern economists will say, and probably as George Orwell would say, us smallies must ask for a return to the Keynesian mixed economy, not a return to socialism, but as Adam Smith, the father of Laissez-faire and the modern free-market warned - do not to try to make money by putting government utilities on the marketplace. Certainly we might add to that, by feeling sure that a great classic economist like Adam Smith, would never believe in that scary phrase that we've been pestered with since the late 1960s, Get Big or Get Out.

Still with the free-market we've got all this cheap stuff coming in from overseas, so why worry about it, she'll be right, mate

Bushbred you are a man of some letters - I commend you.

Having lived through UK “Wilson politics” of the 1960s / 70s I can advise, neo-liberalism and casino capitalism are a better options than the arrogance which accompanies any wally who thinks they can actually “manage” the economy for the good of all especially when it ends up as the good of none.

Government does not manage the economy, it responds to it. Governments are incapable of innovation and generating economic benefit. Only “individuals” are equipped to take risks and make commercial judgements and invest in innovation.

The 1929 fiasco was a matter of imprudent banking practices. The very fact that the dot com collapse of 2000 and then Enron did not result in a repeat of the great depression is testament to how well “casino capitalism” works.

On the matter of university education, it is for some but is not for all and is not the be-all. The world needs plumbers and sparkies as much as Lawyers and a lot more than anthropologists.

I guess to address Tara’s final statement planning and organising are important to industry and commerce which provide the demand for graduates. So never forget, academia is part of a cycle which is supposed to take the best and develop the imagination, intuition, innovation and expertise which will propel humankind forward. I am still challenged by exactly how many university courses make any “contribution” in this context. I further suspect a lot of academics see “tenure” as their personal goal and bugger the students.

Finally, Adam Smith on “Public utilities”. Interesting suggestion Bushbred, although I think “public Utilities” were too few and far between in Adams day to allow any to be put on the marketplace. The water system was an open drain down the middle of the street, Faraday was still working on electricity generation, trains were privately owned, telephones had not been invented and “gas from coal” was a brand new development. Further, “casino capitalism” was busily engaged in recovering from the South Sea Bubble

Thanks for the compliments, Col Rouge, and also the advice. Indeed, I can believe also you are a man of letters. As for me, in my old age, I was told by an American teacher I had natural insight - but we know insight is never natural but only gained through reading which my part German mother always encouraged me to do, even though at the time I preferred to be a good bush horseman or rather just a boy.

It is very interesting, Col, you mentioning Adam Smith as not truly understanding the true market worth of public utilities, even though he is still regarded as the father of Laissez-faire. You also enlightened me about British rail being always private instead of owned by the government. Yet as one who remembers the middle 1920s in our wheatbelt town of Dalwallinu, the farmers had to cart their grain mainly by horse-drawn wagons over 45 miles to Watheroo on the Midland Railway. In fact, the only way our farmers on the Wongan Mullewa route could get a railway was for the government to pay for it. I guess the economic lesson, Col, is that privatisation in early settled areas mostly needs government to buy in first, as my father, a former Labor man continually reminded us.

Regards,

George C, WA - Bushbred

I agree that academics should be sought, nurtured and provided with tenure by universities. However, I am also in the position where our local university is severely understaffed with Academics or even qualified lecturers. In some subjects tutorials are taken by senior under-grad students.

I find this difficult to understand, particularly in those subjects which attract the highest HECS/FEE help band, with 200-250 students. it appears that the University is using the funds derived from this course to subsidise the less costly subjects, whilst leaving the highest payers under-resourced.

This indicates a significant problem, being that it is very difficult to attract suitably qualified Academics to positions paying much less than they would attract with their qualifications on the open market. The result of which is that the persons most suited to joining the academia, are the ones least likely to be attracted to the payscale.

Unfortunately the result is that other employers offer top dollar, for those scholars that have demonstrated the capacity to undertake post-graduate scholarship. Until the universities in this country can compete with these employers, in terms of both money and incentives, the standard of Academics in this country will continue to fall.

Aaron

Tara, A very idealistic set of goals for quality Higher Education. I agree with most of what you say. However, I don't see how the requirement for a teaching diploma is going to expand research time, quality or output?

I too was taught by passionate, entertaining, inclusive and socially committed, University lecturers whose reflections on life stimulated me to examine my own and interrogate the entire Western tradition. I'm dubious that a teaching diploma could ever compare with the constant love of learning I gained from emulating them.

I also confess to a PhD but am genuinely amazed by the anti-intellectualism amongst some of the posts. Why do we Australians do this? Americans are successful capitalists but they don't seem to have this Australian antipathy towards University learning. Many of their corporate elite still do Liberal Arts degrees not the "real world" subjects, like I.T and business that we fill our Universities with. I guess it indicates that our leaders are comfortable with the middle-management role we've carved out for ourselves in the new international division of labour. Comfortable mediocrity. Does it surprise you that a few academics will follow this lead?

There is the issue of whether or not Universities are primarily for teaching or for research, but if Universities have become “lazy” and “mediocre”, then they do not represent much value for money for the taxpayer, or for the students

In the area of research, quality of research could be measured by the number of citations, articles or book published etc, but quality of research could also be measured by the number of patents obtained, as good quality research would often produce some type of useful product or device that is first patented and then manufactured for sale. Minimal quality of research would eventually equate to minimal patents being obtained.

It would be interesting to see data relating to
-the number of patents obtained by Australian universities as compared to other research organisations or private companies.
-the number of patents obtained by Australian universities now compared to the past.

In the area of teaching:- If a university lecturer does not need formal qualifications in teaching then this could be unique, as TAFE colleges normally require their teachers to have formal teaching qualifications, and many private companies now require their supervisors and staff to have formal training qualifications (which can be obtained through a “train the trainer” type course).

However it is not greatly necessary for a university student to have a subject “lecturer”, as many university students undertake correspondence courses, and never attend a subject lecture, nor do they ever see, hear or directly contact the lecturer of that subject. What these students do require are good subject notes that are normally provided by a subject teacher, and those subject notes then replace the verbal type lectures traditionally given by a lecturer. If the notes provided by the subject teacher are written well enough, they can be superior to any traditional type lecture that is delivered verbally.

As an added bonus, the subject notes can be developed by a combined group of experts on that subject, which means that any biases or prejudices from one person are likely reduced, and the subject notes would be more likely accurate.

Holding forth on all the things that are wrong with our universities is a popular sport that seems to bring forth all our personal foibles and biasses, often ill-informed by actual information.

I was surprised to read that 'the value and importance of academics holding a PhD has declined.' The university managements that I know are dead keen on every new recurit having one. Too much so, IMHO - the greatest teachers I have come across in my 30 years of studying and working in universities didn't have one (although I do).

I'm also surprised that Tara takes us to task for not having an RAE, but fails to mention that the Commonwealth is far down the track of developing one, in this case called an RQF - my university is already preparing for it, and I suspect hers will be too.

I agree that teacher training is a good idea. But I'm sceptical that we can improve standards by expecting every academic to be a brilliant teacher and a brilliant researcher as well. Some can do both equally well, but most will favour either one or the other.

So to my mind the right approach is to favour diversity. Let's have some academics who do more teaching than research, some who do more research than teaching, and some who are ambidextrous. And let's create career paths for all three types.

I write in (somewhat late) response to Tara Brabazon's article.
Brabazon's piece is commendable to the extent that it both takes
seriously, and proposes ways of improving university teaching in
the Australian context. Teaching is an issue that is often (in many ways) devalued in our universities and by scholarship committees, so
bravo Tara for taking it on.

I do, however, have a number of suggestions/points to add to Dr
Brabazon's. The first concerns the aforementioned devaluation (or
under-appreciation, to use a somewhat less harsh term) of
teaching within universities. I do believe further measures are
required to ensure that teaching is taken more seriously in an
academic context. This could mean scholarship committees taking
teaching experience of postgrads more seriously when they apply
(at the moment, these committees seem more interested in counting
refereed articles. Fair enough, but teaching doesn't seem to get
a look-in).

Secondly, in terms of the academic requiring a PhD... A
tough one. I write 'tough' because there are disciplines (i.e. engineering, law, medicine) where 'on-the-job' experience is equally -if in some respects more - valuable than the doctoral thesis.

Overall, though, some thought-provoking material here. Well done, Tara!