Universities should take responsibility for builiding ethical and moral character (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

I am conflicted regarding this issue.

On the one hand the arguments made by Pwar and Iron do resonate with me. I think that a university which produces well rounded individuals able to think critically and engage with their world is a good thing. This idea does however tend to be based on the early concepts of universities - which is to say institutions to educate the ruling elite, to provide a common background, language, ethos and framework to understand the world. In many ways the Ivy League universities continue in this tradition - and churn out Presidents, captains of industry and other movers and shakers in our society.

On the other hand though education is a commodity and as customers students deserve to get what they want. The wants of students are in turn driven by the demands of the businesses to which students will later sell their labour. In Australia however courtesy of the HECS system to Government (and therefore as taxpayers, society) is paying for much of a person's degree. Should the Government therefore mandate certain conditions in return for it's investment? Conditions which would presumably increase the positive externality for society as a result of an individuals education?

Ultimately there are two conflicting views of education at play here, education as a duty to society and education as a commodity. In Australia as Pwar pointed out the dominant model has been education as a commodity.

As a society we have valued education based on the job we think it will get us, our Government's have reinforced this by tauting the productivity benefits of education as the reason to increase enrollments.

I think that Macquarie's model is a sound one as it does not require a massive investment of time by the student however does expand the breadth of material covered in their degree. And as Freedom said the market will determine whether or not this model will be successful in the commoditised Australian education market.

 

[loquasagacious]

Exactly. We can learn a lot from systems in place in Singapore/Switzerland that provide empowerment and a chance to mature through National Service programs after students finish their High School studies. I'm not looking for some sunshine, lollipops and rainbows utopian here but I do think it could provide a benefit that the students may not realise until they had come out the other side of it.

I'm all for the idea, especially if it gives students the chance to, god forbid, think about the path they are taking post-HSC studies. Sure, the gap year popularity is gaining momentum, however I still believe there are far too many students jumping into university courses in areas that they aren't fully committed to. I'd say the majority of students see university as merely an extension of high school.

We've discussed national service in other threads and the general agreement was that it tends to be a very expensive way of achieving not very much....

 

[AsyLum]

Ultimately there are two conflicting views of education at play here, education as a duty to society and education as a commodity. In Australia as Pwar pointed out the dominant model has been education as a commodity.

The issue, I think, is the value/implementation of education through means other than universities. It has become a catch-all for vocational and theoretical instruction, perhaps the rise of a 'middle ground' though I'm not sure if it's implementable.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Imo, if young people haven't learnt the values they're 'supposed' to have learnt by uni, then there's something wrong with schools and society.

 

[AsyLum]

Imo, if young people haven't learnt the values they're 'supposed' to have learnt by uni, then there's something wrong with schools and society.

And which 'values' are they? Some sort of homogeneous values which can be espoused and accorded to every single student? Ethics and morals can be discussed and taught but it is only through experience and testing that these can be properly 'acquired' by the person.

To suggest that the vast majority of 18 year olds, confined within an educational institution and social bubble for the vast majority of their youth would or should be able to make decisions based upon their often limited views and experiences on the world in order to decide upon the course of action for the next 20-30 years of their lives is naive at best. I would contend that the experiences learned between the ages of 18-21 are perhaps equal to those learnt in the first 18 years of life, and arguably perhaps even moreso, as they offer the first real experiences for many people into the outside world.

 

[blue_chameleon]

I would contend that the experiences learned between the ages of 18-21 are perhaps equal to those learnt in the first 18 years of life, and arguably perhaps even moreso, as they offer the first real experiences for many people into the outside world.

This understanding and reflection is only possible though once people have actually been through the 18-21 period in their life.

I do agree with you though. It's sobering to reflect back upon my last 5 years and track how I have developed through experiences.

 

[loquasagacious]

The issue, I think, is the value/implementation of education through means other than universities. It has become a catch-all for vocational and theoretical instruction, perhaps the rise of a 'middle ground' though I'm not sure if it's implementable.

I think the catch-all nature of universities is one of the problems here because it is that characteristic which has commoditised tertiary education. They have become catch-all institutions through qualification inflation and Government policies, both if which I believe are issues which need addressing.

The common view point currently is that university study is something everyone should strive for but it simply isn't, and as a result many students in universities today wouldn't have been there in the past. In fact I don't even agree with encouraging schooling to year12.... if people want to work in the trades it simply doesn't make sense to do yr11/12.

I would like to see a remodelling of our education system in which students were streamed from yr9 onwards. A tertiary, vocational and a trades stream. Yr9/10 would be spent preparing the trades stream for apprencticeships. Yr 9/10 would be the same for tertiary and vocational streams. Yr11/12 for the tertiary stream would be uni-lite, maybe something like first-year uni in a liberal arts degree (compulsory mix of humanities, sciences, etc). Yr 11/12 for the Vocational stream would be similar to the current one but with mandatory work experience components. The Vocational stream then exits for traineeships/etc and the tertiary stream exits for university.

Oh and it should be a national system.

 

[xeuyrawp]

On the other hand though education is a commodity and as customers students deserve to get what they want.

Hey, I agree 100%. I agree that if you want to buy education, or even healthcare, sex, drugs etc for that matter, you should be able to do so.

However, I don't think that universities which aim to be on the top-tier should (for their own benefit) offer what students want as opposed to what they need. There is absolutely no necessity for universities to sell-out for cash; in fact it appears that the universities which don't sell out are actually the most financially sound.

Take Oxford as an example. It's fiercely independent, shown by the fact that any outside influence on things like the university council cause the biggest debates. They even told one Prime Minister to fuck off as they weren't going to give her an honourary degree. At the moment, they're having a new campaign to raise funds and are looking for over 1 billion UK pounds and have already raised like half of it. It's crazy; people die and leave large chunks of their will to the uni. Yes the uni does think financially, but they don't sell out to do it.

Chicago's another great example. Essentially founded by the richest person of all-time, yet has maintained not only the highest of moral integrity, but is the world-leader in many areas. It has one of the largest association of any university with Nobel Prizes, and this is a uni which was founded after Sydney Uni! Ie, you can't say that universities need to have been established centuries ago (like Oxford) to be both ethically and financially unshakeable.

 

[loquasagacious]

I think that universities like Oxford, Chicago, the ivy league and other top-tier universities are essentially competing in the 'premium' end of the education market - Australia doesn't really have a premium market because customers are all paying the same amount....