David draws the distinction between the practical and the theoretical viz-a-viz University education. I think this is the important dichotomy that Unis need to face when designing courses for the future. What's the point of producing a super-theoretical physicist, say, that is so narrowly focussed that he's useless in the real world?

I think the country would be better off if unis had some mechanism whereby students who aren't suited to the theoretical stuff could transfer to another institution or course where they could augment their learning with more practical material, without playing a game of 'snakes and ladders' and having to start a new course from scratch. At least then you don't have students walking off the conveyor belt with a piece of paper in their hand but who are no more useful to their eventual employer than had they only done the first year of their degree.

I also note the comments about truthful promotion of course content and usefulness by the Universities. If it's not clear what they are offering, this is a fundamental problem that must be addressed.

Robp, that is where the institutions and courses where I got my piece of paper excelled. I have an Associate Diploma of Applied Chemistry which was awarded to me in 1960 at what was then Swinburne Technical College.
The chemists and engineers from that period who were trained in those technical colleges were able to go straight into a job and make a useful contribution right away. Those who studied for an extra year at a university took at least another year before they were of any use to anyone. They might have known a bit more about the theory side of things, but they were very lacking when it came to application and I am talking from personal experience.

The areas of scientific endeavor are not the only ones so afflicted. You only have to look at the mess the care of the sufferers from mental illness has degenerated to since the theoretical meddlers from the bureaucracy closed down all the residential institutions and tried to make people live independently.

Everyone seems to study statistics these days, but no one tells them that there are liars, damned liars, and statisticians.

David

Call me old fashioned, but I thought that universities focussed on education and inquiry. Not the begetting of a trade for a job. That's what TAFE is for. Before attending TAFE I'd want to know what are the employment rates.

Interesting that the author of the article wants to know about research and research articles from teachers. So presumably there is still that element of inquiry. Who should fund the research and the writing of papers? And exactly how are my teacher's research papers going to help my job prospects?

One big problem lately, and I encounter this at work on an almost daily basis, is the monumental over education of many people for the tasks that they are required to perform. Any kind of learning in a class room does not necessarily translate in an ability to actually perform tasks.

Australia has an extraordinary number of universities per head of population. Maybe we should differentiate more clearly to studying solely for a particular job or studying to acquire a certain body of knowledge, which at the end of the day hopefully can be utilized for certain types of employment.

Warning: do not waste time studying to teach...Oh Malcom, it is so refreshing to have this topic so succinctly expressed. I am one of many who have recently completed a primary school teaching degree, a single parent who had hoped to better my career prospects and still be able to have time for my kids. Alas and alack - both the Departments of Education, and the various Universities continue to advertise for a job market that just simply does not exist! 'Teach and make a difference' says the NSW authority. A difference to what, you might ask? Their profit margins perhaps? To add insult to injury neither the relevent Department of Education or the University responds to enquiries or feedback, and of course 'economic rationalism' cuts public funding, thus reducing opportunities for both teachers and pupils. 'Dumbing Down Under', now there's an appropriate slogan.

David,

I couldn’t agree more that institutes of technology have a more hands-on emphasis and produce more employable people as a result.

I went through Uni in the early 1980s blindly following the mathematics and physics strands for the first 2 years (without any clear or firm idea about what I wanted to do) before jumping across to earth sciences and majoring in it. It was the best thing I did at Uni because it enabled me to get skills with a job at the end of it. Had I stayed in physics/maths I would probably have ended up being unemployed. The next year, I moved to Perth and did a Grad. Dip. at the WA Institute of Technology. It was the most useful year of learning I ever did as it rounded off my theoretical skills with up-to-date practical ones.

But to make this happen, I had to make all the moves myself as there was no formal mechanism to transfer between institutes.

To partially overcome this problem, maybe the TAFEs, universities and Institutes of Technology could merge into a kind of flexible learning network so that the individual student isn’t taking all the risks himself.

Jolanda, if your kids are in year 10 it doesn't really matter what they study. What subjects they choose in year 10 aren't going to lock them into a career path. What is important in high school is doing the subjects they are good at so that they can get a high ENTER, which can be used to get into a course they want.

Don't think you're going to get a good education from just any university. Research carefully because not all universities are equal. Some have strong reputations and have been around for a long time. Others have been created in a hurry to cash in on some students' desires for any university degree.

A good place is to start is to look at university rankings from The Times Higher Education Supplement (Just Google THES Australia). The highest ranked university in Australia is ANU followed by Melbourne Uni.