The Melbourne Model: Thoughts and Opinions (1 Viewer)

[decimated.dream]

i remember when they told us about the new melbourne model on residential ( coz we went to melb. uni) n everyone just hated the idea, we were all just like screw melbourne.. let's just go to monash.. i guess that's where i wanna go too

 

[aodmjgnwpekignw]

was thinking about doing law......now my chances of getting into monash or melbourne law is very slim....but engineering and med isn't affected next yr which is kool

 

[Trigger_003]

Ah that really sucks for you Strawbaby! That makes me dislike it even more.

Melb would have been an option, but I don't want a 5 year degree... I'm ready to study music, not do a general course... that's what school was for. I can however see how it might appeal to those who aren't really sure of what they're interested in yet.

I don't really support the idea anyway. I don't believe that reducing available places and pushing up the costs of uni is what we need, and there's the chance that quite a few students who already know what they want to do may be bored/bludging their general courses until they get into the bits they actually wanted to go to uni for, diminshing the worth of the general streams.

Many students I've talked to - who would be more than suitable for a more indepth course - no longer wish to go there as the courses will cost much more, and they can't afford it even with the grant, don't believe the added costs are worth it, or simply don't agree with the whole elitist deal.

 

[b3lladonna]

I think people should stop choosing uni's for what they perceive as "prestige" and chose uni's for true "quality"
Melbourne has historical establishment, I won't argue with that. Yes, maybe some law firms only accept Melbourne graduates, but if you want to work for firms who judge you by what university you attended then I don't think you're doing law for the right reasons. And no, the right reasons is not because it "pays well" or "it looks good to people being a lawyer" which I believe a majority of people doing law seem to believe.

I've said it before, and this only reaffirms my view: Melbourne Uni cares more about making some profit than being an educational institution. It's saddening that the forefathers of Melbourne University intended it to be an academic institution where ordinary people could receive a quality education and now it's degenerated into this: a corporation running as a business under the guise of an academic institution open solely to those rich enough to buy their way in, rather than those with the brains.
It's doing this to attract even more international students than it already attracts, and international students who are willing to pay to do a Law degree for example. It may say it's doing this so it's ranked more highly internationally, but don't fall for it-- it cares about profit and nothing more. I think we should use the term "university" loosely when applying it to Melbourne, because I don't think it can be known as that any longer.

I go to La Trobe and I opted for it OVER Melbourne which I also got into. I bet everyone is looking at me thinking that I'm crazy for choosing the "working class uni" La Trobe over "prestigious elite Melbourne" That is the kind of mentality I see at this board, and a lot of other places. People think they're better than everyone else because they go to Melbourne or Monash. I've met so many people who have transferred from both of these uni's because they felt they weren't getting a very good education or university experience. La Trobe was recently ranked in the 100 best uni's in the world and ranked 23rd in the world for Arts and Humanities. But it gets overlooked by Melbourne and Monash. Well all I can say is those who care about getting a quality university education, at a university that actually DOES care about providing its students with this, don't overlook places like La Trobe or even Deakin (which actually does have an excellent Law degree) Let this "Melbourne Model" be the wake-up call.

 

[gulamali]

if you went for a job, and there where 2 potential candiates you and another bloke, both done the same degree and exp same. One from melb uni, and another from lets say RMIT....the employer is 99% of the time going to take the melbourne graduate...and if you say that they take the 'smater' one, obviously again the melbourne graduate is smarter, he/she got the better enter to go there. It's simple.....as much as we hate to admit it, or as much as people don't like melbourne or think its no prestigous...or whatever the reason may be. The MANY employers, will base their decision on where the applicant did their tertiary study.

 

[melanie.dee]

does anyone have an idea/opinion on how much the enter for monash law is going to go up? from 99.05 or something to what..? i mean surely it will, since a lot of people that would have gone to melbourne will choose monash instead.. but its so hard to work out how much. i hate that we're the guinea pig year level

 

[Triangulum]

if you went for a job, and there where 2 potential candiates you and another bloke, both done the same degree and exp same. One from melb uni, and another from lets say RMIT....the employer is 99% of the time going to take the melbourne graduate...and if you say that they take the 'smater' one, obviously again the melbourne graduate is smarter, he/she got the better enter to go there. It's simple.....as much as we hate to admit it, or as much as people don't like melbourne or think its no prestigous...or whatever the reason may be. The MANY employers, will base their decision on where the applicant did their tertiary study.

Employers aren't going to base their decision on your university. Yes, it tells them who got the better mark in Y12. Once you've completed 3+ years of a degree, employers don't care that much if your UAI or ENTER or whatever was 99.2 or 94.5. They look at your tertiary results, and your personal attributes, and how well they think you'll fit into their company. Your university will probably play some small role in the decision, but it's not going to be an overriding factor. As jb_nc said, they're not going to take (to give a NSW example) an average Sydney graduate over a brilliant Macquarie graduate just because Usyd is more 'prestigious'.

 

[GoodToGo]

I applaud what Melbourne Uni is trying to do.

Quite frankly, there are far too many people doing law for the sake of it which negatively affects the educational and social experience of the rest of the cohort.

Under the new model students can get themselves into a generalist degree, learn something new, expand their horizons, broaden their minds...all that "undergraduate" stuff, and then upon completion are still keen, apply for the JD program.

 

[AppleXY]

Sorry for that flame attack on the start of this page.

Going back to the topic, The Melbourne Model can be excellent for some people who are still in midst of decision making on their future careers, in their selected discipline (for example there is alot of professions in Commerce). But, on the contrary, it can be very disadvantageous for people who have already selected their disciplines and do not want to go through a general degree, also for people who can't go into their course that they like because it is not available to them. Personally, I hope that the Melbourne Model becomes a success and other universities catch the lead. Because, really, you can easily change your mind in uni on what to major in or whatever.


Speaking about Uni choices should really be made by the end decision maker, the VCE graduate. But if I was employing an university fresh graduate - ceteris paribus - I would certainly take the UoM graduate as that grad would have an enriched knowledge unlike other students. UoM requires a high ENTER, and a High ENTER requires hard work and commitment. This alone suggests that the person is willing to tackle any situation that he/she has been given. Also the melbourne graduate is a global citizen, is aware of the changing of the world.

I would have to agree with b3ll to an extent. Albeit the 100 or so million dollars of scholarships that the University will spent, $$$ = Education. If you got the l00t, you can get it all. It really sadens me, as I come from a public school But the University is dedicated to Access & Equity (or is it jus propaganda LOL) and A&E's vision statement is "Knowledge should be the gate to higher realms of knowledge, not money".

And oh yeah, again sorry for the flame post at the start of this page. Still regretting it

Axy.

 

[w2dot]

But if I was employing an university fresh graduate - ceteris paribus - I would certainly take the UoM graduate as that grad would have an enriched knowledge unlike other students. UoM requires a high ENTER, and a High ENTER requires hard work and commitment. This alone suggests that the person is willing to tackle any situation that he/she has been given. Also the melbourne graduate is a global citizen, is aware of the changing of the world.

I'd have to totally disagree with that. Not all people with high ENTERs work hard. There are plenty of people with lower enter scores who work harder than those with higher enter scores.
For example, person 1 crams the night before. person 2 worked hard consistently through the year. Person 1 may get the higher score, that doesn't mean he/she is the harder worker.

 

[Excalibur_]

I think the Melbourne Model is a cash grab, to be quite honest.

While it's all nice for those people who get above 98 - what about those who missed out, even by the slightest. If they subsequently do well in Uni (bear in mind that ENTER is not a perfect indicator of University acheivement), they would probably be the hardest hit by student debt?

And three years of U/G Arts minus $2,500 is sitll around $10,000 - $15,000. Add two years of a P/G (no CSP), law for example, and you're looking at a MASSIVE debt.

 

[Triangulum]

Yeah, the fact that they're defining JD as postgrad is a bit of a problem. Law is expensive enough as it is.

 

[Trigger_003]

I'd have to totally disagree with that. Not all people with high ENTERs work hard. There are plenty of people with lower enter scores who work harder than those with higher enter scores.
For example, person 1 crams the night before. person 2 worked hard consistently through the year. Person 1 may get the higher score, that doesn't mean he/she is the harder worker.

Plus the uni chosen doesn't depict enter scores as strongly as that. Even if someone gets 99.95, they go for the course that suits their needs. If some of them thought a particular tafe was better for them, they'd be smart to go there instead. It's not a case of "oh, what a surprise, I got 99.4... I'll now pick Melb."

 

[AppleXY]

Touché everyone LOL

But, these are like motivational things that should be said at the end of the year. Some people can get demoralised and may not work as hard now lol lol lol

 

[jb_nc]

This is hilarious. Everyone saying the Melbourne model is terrible are at university already while the majority saying it's good are VCE/HSC students, lol. Even a few months at university will change you.

 

[aodmjgnwpekignw]

Sorry for that flame attack on the start of this page.

Going back to the topic, The Melbourne Model can be excellent for some people who are still in midst of decision making on their future careers, in their selected discipline (for example there is alot of professions in Commerce). But, on the contrary, it can be very disadvantageous for people who have already selected their disciplines and do not want to go through a general degree, also for people who can't go into their course that they like because it is not available to them. Personally, I hope that the Melbourne Model becomes a success and other universities catch the lead. Because, really, you can easily change your mind in uni on what to major in or whatever.


Speaking about Uni choices should really be made by the end decision maker, the VCE graduate. But if I was employing an university fresh graduate - ceteris paribus - I would certainly take the UoM graduate as that grad would have an enriched knowledge unlike other students. UoM requires a high ENTER, and a High ENTER requires hard work and commitment. This alone suggests that the person is willing to tackle any situation that he/she has been given. Also the melbourne graduate is a global citizen, is aware of the changing of the world.

I would have to agree with b3ll to an extent. Albeit the 100 or so million dollars of scholarships that the University will spent, $$$ = Education. If you got the l00t, you can get it all. It really sadens me, as I come from a public school But the University is dedicated to Access & Equity (or is it jus propaganda LOL) and A&E's vision statement is "Knowledge should be the gate to higher realms of knowledge, not money".

And oh yeah, again sorry for the flame post at the start of this page. Still regretting it

Axy.

what do u mean by that??

i was interested in law a while ago, and was researching the field. many law firms do not care where you get ur degree from. law firms will always take a well-rounded person with a degree from a lesser 'prestigious' uni over a complete a nerd who doesn't socialize from a uni like melbourne.

 

[jb_nc]

He's speaking absolute rubbish with some ridiculous buzzwords "global ciitzen", "enriched knowledge" and he's two years off university.

They're not teaching top secret knowledge at Melbourne.

 

[Triangulum]

This is hilarious. Everyone saying the Melbourne model is terrible are at university already while the majority saying it's good are VCE/HSC students, lol. Even a few months at university will change you.

I don't mind the idea of compulsory generalist study, but the Melbourne Model isn't it. It still allows you to do, say, commerce or economics without touching the liberal arts, and vice versa. This isn't Harvard's core curriculum or UNSW's general education program. It's a shameless grab for cash that simply involves forcing people who want the most expensive degrees to pay full fee and do another degree before it.

 

[Excalibur_]

Here's yet another senseless argument: "Come to Monash, we have a lake!"

In all seriousness, I think it's just a cash grab. Generalist (and for that matter, some specialist) degrees have just as much international repute at other unis. It just depends on the links that said university has with other universities around the world.

Oh, and you want global focus in your course? Just add a lecturer who's been everywhere. Done.

It has NOTHING to do with a 'certain model of generalised courses'.

 

[Nobody Listened]

Look kids, uni talk -> in the uni forums.
Moving topic, again.