In 2008, Melbourne University, led by Kevin Rudd’s good friend, Glyn Davis, introduced an American-style model of undergraduate study, subsequently dubbed the Melbourne Model. At the time, students, staff and commentators criticised the move. Two years later, it appears that the Melbourne Model is being shunned by students, with The Age reporting last week that Melbourne University is now less popular than not only long-time rival Monash, but also RMIT and Deakin University. Information obtained exclusively by Crikey also confirms that elite students are turning away from the once-prestigious Melbourne University law school in droves.
Under the Melbourne Model, undergraduate students are able to undertake 17 undergraduate courses — in 2007, students were able to choose from more than 90 different courses.
When the Melbourne Model was introduced, many students expressed dismay at the restrictions on undertaking courses such as law or medicine at an undergraduate level. The ability to undertake the course of one’s choice was considered a preferred model than requiring students to first complete a generalist degree, which, in many cases, is unnecessary to their future vocation. Under the model adopted by other Australian universities, students still have the option to first complete a “generalist” degree should they choose — however, few take it up unless they fail to obtain a high enough entry score to make it into law or medicine in the first instance.
This view appears to be substantially confirmed by the recent Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre preference data.
According to VTAC, Melbourne’s long-time rival, Monash University, received 14,364 applications, RMIT more than 10,000 and Deakin 9978 compared with only 8372. Melbourne would contend that raw first-preference figures are misleading, because it offers far less courses (only 17) than its rivals. In that regard, Melbourne University’s provost, Professor John Dewar, told The Age that the data was actually an “endorsement of the Melbourne Model” given “first preferences for its six ‘new generation’ generalist degrees were up 3%.” Dewar failed to mention that demand for Monash and Deakin increased by 12% and 16% respectively.
However, the true effect of the Melbourne Model is being seen in the huge spike in demand for Monash’s bachelor of law program (on the major courses no longer offered by Melbourne at an undergraduate level). From its inception in the early 1960s, Monash University was generally considered the less prestigious and favoured of the two institutions (Melbourne almost across the board had a higher ENTER requirement for most courses). As a result, while Monash arguably offered a more “practical” and less theoretical law degree, elite students tended to opt for Melbourne University because of its superior “brand”. However, thanks to Davis’ Melbourne Model, that notion has been turned upside down.
In 2008, the year in which the Melbourne Model was introduced, Monash received an unprecedented 96.3% spike in “first preferences” for its undergraduate law program. This year, demand was up another 27%. Putting it simply — instead of choosing law at Melbourne, top students are heading in their droves to Monash.
Overall, since the Melbourne Model was introduced, demand for Monash’s undergraduate law program (largely from elite students) has risen by more than 153%. (By contrast, Melbourne University spokesperson Christina Buckridge wrote in Crikey on November 9, 2009 that the “Melbourne Model’s … six courses (have witnessed) first preferences up 3%”. This does not compare especially well to Monash’s 153% increase.
That is not to say Melbourne’s undergraduate courses are shunned, general commerce, arts and science degrees at Melbourne remain popular with students, however, it is the elite students, who prefer to undertake courses such as medicine or law at an undergraduate level, who have selected Monash, rather than Melbourne as their first preference.
Speaking with Crikey, a Melbourne University spokesperson defended the Model, claiming that it offered students “more choice”. This appeared to be a somewhat confusing defence given that the Melbourne Model appears to specifically remove the most preferred option: undertaking courses such as law, medicine or dentistry at an undergraduate level.
Some contend that the Melbourne Model is not about improving education, but rather about money. Under changes introduced by the federal government (the Prime Minister happens to be very good friends with the vice-chancellor of Melbourne University, with Davis chairing Kevin Rudd’s 2020 talkfest), universities are no longer able to charge “full fees” for local undergraduate students. Therefore, without the lucrative Melbourne Model, the university may have faced a substantial funding shortfall.
By contrast, universities are still able to charge “full-fees” for half of its places in its postgraduate programs, like the Juris Doctor (the remaining half are offered on a Commonwealth-supported basis). This can make quite a substantial difference. Taking law, for example, under the “old” model, students were able to undertake a combined law/arts degree at a cost of approximately $45,000 over five years. This sum would be repaid after the student has started employment and earns above a threshold amount.
Under the Melbourne Model, candidates are required to first undertake a three-year “generalist” arts degree (at a cost of approximately $15,000) and then scramble for one of the Commonwealth-supported places in the postgraduate law program. If they were unable to receive one of the Commonwealth-supported place, according to the Melbourne University website, the cost increases to $89,200.
Not only is the cost higher, but the fees must be up-front (unless loans or some other kind of assistance is obtained) rather than after the student starts full-time employment. In addition, the Melbourne Model would require students to spend at least one extra year of study (six years, rather than five), delaying their entry into the work-force (which would probably represent an opportunity cost of more than $50,000).
Cynics suggest that there was one other benefit from the Melbourne Model. That is, the extra revenue created by the Model allows for higher salaries for people such as Glyn Davis, who was paid $610,000 in 2007 but has seen his pay packet swell to approximately $800,000 this year.
Disclosure: The writer completed a Bachelor of Law (Hons) and Bachelor of Commerce from Monash University and undertook postgraduate law studies at Boston College in the United States (which operates under a system similar to the Melbourne Model).
It just doesn’t make sense for students who achieved high ENTER scores to then do 3 years of study where they have to have top marks again to get into law/medicine….it is just too much of a risk and why would you take it? It stressfull enough to do 2 years fo VCE for the ENTER score why would you choose to then be stressed out trying for top marks (ina coures you are not even really interested in) for a further 3 years ? The poeple that this model woudl be OK for I guess are those who dont get high enough scores out of VCE and try and get into law/med in a postgrad way.
I think there are a number of separate issues, here.
First, the Melbourne Model.
The strategic justification for the Melbourne Model is to position the University as something other than a certificate-generation factory. Unfavourable comparisons with undergraduate enrolments at Monash, RMIT and Deakin would appear, therefore, to be misguided. The Model is certainly driven by the funding squeeze felt by all Australian universities, but this, like the Model itself, pre-dates the election of the Rudd government.
Second, the purpose of university study.
“Unnecessary to their future vocation” is depressing language. On a narrowly vocational view (which I do not share), very few university subjects outside the disciplines of Accounting, Law, Medicine and Engineering would appear to be justified.
Third, executive salaries.
This seems to me by far the most substantial issue. The Vice-Chancellor’s package is paltry by Australian executive standards (if “standards” is the word to use), but is no less obscene for that, given that it doubles that of the Prime Minister (who has, whatever one thinks of him personally, the most important job in the country). Nor is Professor Davis’ package exceptional in the organization. The University of Melbourne happily devastates faculties such as Arts and the former VCA on the grounds that they need to run as profit centres while piling up layer upon layer of staggeringly expensive corporate overhead for faculties to support.
http://www.rodbeecham.com.au
Schwab makes a couple of mistakes.
First, most Melbourne undergraduate-entry law students used to take a double degree – in fact, it may have been required for some period. The change introduced by the Melbourne model was to have students complete their dual programs sequentially rather than concurrently.
As VIRTUALKAT says, the real question for prospective students is: why waste my parents’ fees on an elite private school and all my hard work to get a high tertiary entrance rank not to be guaranteed a place in law – undergraduate or graduate entry? So one possible solution is for the University of Melbourne to guarantee all applicants with a tertiary entrance rank of > 90 entry to law provided they complete their undergraduate program satisfactorily. I think the university may have introduced such a policy for the highest scoring students, but it needs to extended to more applicants to increase first preferences and cut-off scores.
Secondly, post graduate domestic full fee-paying students haven’t been required to pay their fees up front since 2002 when the government introduced a Hecs-like income contingent loan now called Fee-Help.
It has always been a good idea in principle to try and give students a broader education that goes beyond the narrow vocational subjects needed to get a job. The best lawyers are the ones that have a broader understanding of the social context in which the specialised world of law operates. The best accountants are those who know more than the content of the accounting standards.
The question is whether the vocational and the generalist studies should be taken in parallel (combined degree) or in sequence (MM). From an educational perspective either is fine.
But it looks as if students may be fixated on education as a means of getting a job only and want to get stuck into the vocational subjects from the outset. If Melbourne can’t sell the sequential model to the student market (and pariticularly to the top echelons of that market, which is what they target), then they may indeed have a problem.
I’m not sure that the data cited support the implicit hypothesis that the ‘Melbourne model’ has failed. My understanding is that there are now fewer undergraduate places on offer at Melbourne (this may be wrong). If there are fewer places, one would expect students to recognize this and there would be a commensurate reduction in applications. The question then becomes has the reduction in applications been greater than the reduction in places and had an impact on the average quality of accepted students. I’ve seen no prediction of that so far.