I’m not personally fussed about whether people know my field (then again, I’m not completely sure I have a field, properly speaking), but I tend to think there is a value in people knowing the history and theory of their *own* field(s), however they choose to define them – it’s this element that I worry about, when I mention the vocational flattening that results from the Australian system.

Obviously, this will be more pronounced at a place like RMIT, because the university originated as a “working men’s” college, and retains very close ties to policy-making and industrial sectors. I have to admit that I largely enjoy this aspect of RMIT, and deliberately chose to work here, rather than a more theoretically-oriented university, because, although my personal work is very theoretical, I wanted to work in a place where the university valued the integration of academic work with more practical concerns. Many US universities, in my opinion, did terrible damage to themselves and to the broader intellectual culture by accentuating their “ivory tower” orientation in reaction to the political swings of the 1980s and 1990s… But that’s probably a matter for another post… I do think, though, that the greater vocational emphasis of the Australian university sector has helped, at least a bit, keep the universities from separating themselves from wider political and cultural discourses, and I think this is an important and positive thing.

On whether my comments are an indictment of US high schools… Yes – particularly of high schools serving urban public school populations… I’m not trying to paper over issues with the Australian public school system in saying this – and I find it particularly distressing that the public system here seems to be dramatically under-valued and under-prioritised at the moment. But the problem in the US is still, I think, more acute – in part because of how schools are funded in the US (local property taxes play an important role) and in part because of a general underinvestment in distressed urban areas. And this of course has ramifications for the skills even of those students who “succeed” in US high schools and go on to university.

I agree that high school students aren’t really capable of making a career choice that early, however a few factors mitigate that:

- When you apply you get to see ever possible course in a big book, so there is a fair level of discovery and debate about what to put as your preferences (for the benefit of overseas readers, Australian university applications are conducted through a central body rather than directly to the institutions).

- Most course have a general component to them (albeit inadequate, but I’ll get to that), particularly in the first couple of years, which makes switching between courses relatively trivial. Four-five year degrees across several courses are quite common.

- Your mileage will vary between universities. RMIT is particularly vocational, while the University of Melbourne was already predominately theoretical in approach. When I did my Computer Science degree at the latter it started as a broad Science degree — no arts though. Research oriented students were directed into research oriented computer science classes from second year so we were fairly aware of both the current literature, and the particular research schools of the department by the end of honours.

Having said that, I think education in Australia is far too vocational and narrow at all levels (it is relatively easy to avoid subjects after year 10 and still get into university). The real benefit of a broad education is that you can apply a range of approaches to problems and see the connection. This is particularly important for innovation and research. In my experience, most graduating students have very narrow frameworks to view things from, to their detriment.

One thing I’ll add though, I’ve yet to meet an academic who didn’t think there was some benefit in everyone learning about their particular field, and despite my general agrrement with that, it is probably impractical.

The Australian university admissions process, though, requires that high school students stipulate the profession in which they wish to be trained – which has the effect of flattening and vocationalising the university education students receive.

Personally, I think it’s not the best idea for students to try to choose their career path during high school – high school students are simply not exposed to the range of potential adult occupations, let alone potential academic specialisations. I don’t see how they can possibly make a meaningful choice. (If any of my students are lurking, and want to disagree with me, I’m happy to hear it – since I didn’t come out of the Australian system myself, it may well be that I don’t appreciate how high schools here provide students with a much better basic for making this decision so early, than US high schools…)

Students normally complete a 3-year undergraduate degree – in many fields, this will be sufficient for a BA. Students interested in advanced work then do a fourth honours year, in which they write their BA thesis. (At my university, all planning students do a fourth year, although some use this year to receive research training, while others use it to receive additional workplace-oriented training.)

Students can then jump directly from this honours year into a PhD, although many will test the waters with a research MA first.

My worry with this system is that, in the US, there is a substantial difference between undergraduate coursework and postgraduate coursework (at least, there was at my university, and I don’t believe it was atyptical in this regard). Postgraduate coursework provided, among many other things, professional socialisation for people interested in academic work. It gave students an opportunity to learn what sorts of work have been done, what sorts of questions have been asked, what sorts of methods have been used, what issues are currently being debated – it’s this element that seems to be missing here.

Instead, students jump straight into proposals – and may or may not find the time and institutional support to broaden their knowledge outside of the narrow specialisation of the PhD.

The Australian system does have its own strengths, however – particularly for someone like me, who does interdisciplinary work. Because you aren’t asked to jump through a series of courses and exams for every discipline with which you desire to work, because the system institutionalises the faith that students can be trusted to be autodidacts, etc., there is considerably more freedom here for creative research designs. The different marking and supervision system in use here also frees you, to some degree, for interdisciplinary eclecticism. Etc.

Basically, both the positives and the negatives derive from that fact that the Australian postgraduate system is not so specifically geared to socialising you into an academic discipline. It is a fantastic system for me – but I’ve done the postgraduate coursework drill in the US, and have a strong theoretical background in a variety of disciplines as a result. I’m happy to have the opportunity to burrow immediate into my research and writing process – and I’m more than happy that interdisciplinary work doesn’t raise the sorts of alarm bells here that (in my personal experience) it did in the US.

But, leaving my personal experience aside, I feel that there ought to be a “best of possible worlds” middle ground between this system and the one used in the US.