Talk:Melbourne Model

Melbourne Model page has been redirected to Melbourne Curriculum bringing it in line with actual terminology Unicomms-wiki (talk

Changes made to the content of this page include minor edits to terminology and updating of University rankings to ensure factual accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicomms-wiki (talk • contribs) 01:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV indeed - This article is as turgid as Das Kapital & reads like some bolshevic polemic! I wanted to find out what the Melbourne Model was and all I see is ranting. 14.202.132.63 (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - Melbourne Model This page lacks a balanced opinion on the Melbourne Model, with sources being exclusively critical of the Model, and not a single reference to the academics who support this Model (as there must've been for it to pass by the University of Melbourne governing body and Academic Board). If there are any editors actually at the University of Melbourne who can perhaps provide a more balanced view, and perhaps provide the views of the student body who do no belong to the Student Union (the majority of students do not, I believe) on the Model, this would be greatly appreciated by those interested in this controversial issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.36.29 (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of this article seems to be on the response, as opposed to the actual model.--Ferox117 (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added something to this effect to the top of the page. Now hopefully someone who has the time will see the tag and add more viewpoints and information.220.238.164.30 (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It also seems to lack any actual description of how the new model works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.101.131.40 (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the most POV articles I have ever seen. Very little information actually explains the model and the reasons it was adopted. Almost the entire article is critical of the model. I added the NPOV template to the article to state the obvious. This needs work. Ben 1220 (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is hands-down the most useless WP article I've ever seen on the site. I came here to learn what the Melbourne Model is, not what random groups think about it. Good job. Shadow demon (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How is "US-style" a criticism? I think some Socialist Alternative hacks have been here...128.250.5.248 (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree this shouldn't be seen as a criticism, most of the best universities in the world are from USA. Maybe this should be rephrased so it doesn't sound like a criticism? Ben1220 (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to see what the Melbourne Model was stated to be, then they should just look at the UoM website, where they will find lots of material provided for the public. If they want a critical, in-depth analysis of the policy and its impact so far on the university, then they will have to wait until enough factual material is released. The university administration is not likely to divulge such data, such as discussions held at University Council meetings, and such an analysis is not likely to come from current UoM staff, as they remain under threat of job cuts.

As an ex-member of academic staff of UoM, I would say the strong negative focus of the current page is attributable to the following:

a) the 'Bologna/Bologna-Melbourne/Melbourne Model' was seen by many staff at its introduction to be a Glyn Davis policy that would have a major impact but where staff were not consulted in its formulation. It was a top-down decision to implement as fast as possible with little or no consideration of the negative consequences.
b) the rapid implementation resulted in much extra work by staff, with numerous meetings to plan the new courses; meetings that were characterized by endless changes in course names, student quotas, subject content and integration with other courses/subjects. Rather than bringing faculties and departments together, these caused considerable friction.
c) like any disaster, the immediate public focus inevitably falls on the results. For example, while it is useful to know about the construction of the Titanic, and the errors of judgment by the captain, the main focus at the time was on the sinking and loss of life. In the case of UoM, the original material regarding the 'Model' policies are even more difficult for those affected to write objectively about because they are so tightly coupled to the advertising and PR hype of the university ('DreamLarge'). This is a particularly sore point because the huge advertising costs could have been used to retain staff numbers rather than reduce them.

Mushroom123 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

For someone who came here wanting to know what Melbourne Model is, this article is pretty useless... You should, for instance, outline how the new model is different from the way things used to run. What about breadth subject requirements? As a new undergrad I have to do breadth subjects whereas before, people apparently didn't have breadth subjects. And it is not possible to do double degrees anymore. That's about the only things I know about the Melbourne Model, no thanks to this article... 122.107.130.111 (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I will second some of the comments above and state that this article is absolutely terrible; in fact, it is the most poorly written piece of drivel I have read on Wikipedia to date. Who in the world cares what "Arts student Ben Coleridge" or "Creative Arts student Rosie Delaney" think? The reactions of a few random students are completely meaningless. Ever worse is the quotes from sources that are, for all intents and purposes, anonymous. "Staff Member SP"? "Staff Member BRY"? You have got to be kidding me. What is the "author" of this piece doing, providing criticisms he read from various online message boards and putting them forth as reliable sources fit for what is supposed to be an encyclopedia? The entry reads more like an article for a student newspaper than an entry for a supposed encyclopedia. Even more laughable is the fact that every single response in the "Response" section is negative. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Are we really to believe that out of 35000+ students and almost 8000 faculty, not one "response" could be found that was in support of the proposed change? I am used to one-sided entries at Wikipedia, but this one is so pathetic, I have a hard time believing anyone could type it up without being so embarrassed by the dreck he was producing that he didn't stop immediately and just delete everything, which is what I am going to do if this piece of garbage entry is not fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.157.244 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

---

The two writers immediately above want a clear, comprehensive analysis and comparative description of the 'Melbourne Model', and criticise the lack of positive comments. I think it is pretty clear from what is written that there is a genuine fear by staff of speaking out. The heavy-handed managerial style of Glyn Davis, coupled with the highly visible staff cuts (and many invisible ones by stealth), the incredibly expensive advertising campaigns that tout high ideals but deliver far less than what existed before the changes and cuts, the extension of courses that then incur unnecessary extra costs to students, and the hypocrisy of a university management that brooks no internal discussion on the merits of all these changes; result in serious issues not being presented to the public. What you see are discrete comments by a range of affected and deeply concerned individuals and groups, many of whom wish to remain anonymous in order to protect their careers. Your future is jeopardized if you speak out on this topic. I've seen SP's comments elsewhere on the net, and he/she has been through the meat-grinder already, and I don't blame him/her for retaining anonymity. Yes, students have lost both depth and breadth of teaching (inevitable if you reduce and streamline staff), you can't do double-degrees (which were very popular), and you now have to pay more to get less (but often with inflated degree titles). And if you need a microcosm example of what has happened at the UoM main campus, check out what was done to the Victorian College of the Arts by Glyn and his management cronies (savevca.org). I don't think I saw any positive comments about their management style and policies, except from management. If you want positive comments, just follow the spin and advertising hype pumped out by the tens-of-millions of dollars worth each year by UoM. You are meant to DreamLarge (and PayLarge) but not ThinkLarge.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HowTheUniversityWorks (talk • contribs) 14:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

---

The above comments were written over a year ago, and still this article doesn't contain a description of what the Melbourne model actually is. Please could someone who actually knows what it is (and who can at least fake a NPOV) please add a description at the top? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.219.56.143 (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it’s a bit baffling. From reading this excuse for an article, I have the vague impression that they are squeezing the number of undergraduate courses down to the essentials (so you do Pure Mathematics rather than, I dunno, Mathematics for Feminism), and then make you do a postgrad if you want to actually specialise in anything. This impression may be entirely wrong, because the article is so unclear. — Chameleon 10:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The following is an entirely unsupported assertion:

Most of the criticism is focussed on the loss of jobs (and the consequent negative impact on staff:student ratios) rather than the curriculum itself.

No evidence is advanced that "Most of the criticism" was about job losses rather than "the curriculum itself". That is purely an OPINION. Please add "needs citation" or change! 115.64.132.182 (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)