BA Review: AUS Summary

The BA review panel has recommended a much tighter BA structure, with flow-on effects of a reduction in the number of courses.

It emphasises strongly a liberal arts model, requiring students to take both a major and a minor subject and, overall, to take courses from at least three of four broad ‘domains of knowledge’ in the arts. The current ‘cafeteria model’ where students have considerable leeway in course choice is rejected on both academic and marketing grounds. A more specialised, professionally-oriented structure is also rejected.


The changes would entail a review of all BA course offerings. The panel proposes that the content and boundaries of academic areas be made more explicit through statements of ‘core competencies’. It proposes that changes then be made to course offerings to align with these.

The panel, chaired by Prof Peter Hempenstall of History, and comprising five other academics from the College and a further five members, was given three months from January 2007 by Pro-Vice Chancellor Ken Strongman to recommend a restructuring of the BA degree. After consultation run by the PVC during May, a document will go to the July Faculty. The new degree would then start in 2009.

The main academic change proposed is a major-minor structure. As well as taking six courses from one subject (e.g. two each at first, second and third year levels), students would have to take four courses from a second subject (two of which must be at the second year level). Students would have to take at least one course from three of the domains. See the attached graphic. Double majors would continue. The implications for other faculties remain to be worked through.

The four domains are humanities, social sciences, New Zealand and its region and arts of human expression. This last category bundles together creative arts, English, the languages, art history, some aspects of anthropology and perhaps others. No specific mention is made of the place of Matauranga Maori. The report proposes a working group to divide programmes up between the domains (with some possibility of overlap). It does not discuss how the structure might change the spread of students across programmes.

The panel rejected UCTL’s proposals for cross-disciplinary foundational courses and also gave little space for the Library’s proposals on informational literacy. Instead the review draws on Melbourne University as a model.

The rules on how programmes would build up majors would be tighter. The review contains a ‘graduate profile’ detailing what, in general terms, a BA graduate should look like, which it is proposed all programmes would have to teach to. Programmes would also have to state what the ‘examinable core competencies’ in each subject were at both major and minor levels, what courses taught and assessed those competencies and how student learning progressed. Coding courses as 100/200 and 200/300 would stop.

There is a requirement that majoring programmes be able to show they have the staff to offer the depth and breadth needed for a major. This means that some programmes currently offering majors would not continue to do so but would offer only minors and, furthermore, would not be able to offer a BA Honours. However, staff within such programmes would still be able to teach into the BA Honours.

The panel recognises these proposals would entail significant change and recommends the establishment of a standing committee to oversee the implementation of the changes. It does not, however, indicate how membership of this committee should be constituted. The panel also calls for a new funding model, particularly for languages, and asks that the Governance Group pursues this further. While the realignment of programmes within the College was outside of the panel’s terms of reference, the panel asked that the Governance Group consider how realignments could promote collaboration.

The panel wants to streamline the offerings in the BA, partly from a perception that there is too much competition and not enough cooperation between programmes. A new powerful faculty standing committee would be set up to try to make programmes compete less fiercely for EFTS and enter instead into ‘serious strategic planning’ over overlaps, duplications and ad hoc offerings. The faculty committee would look at existing, not just new, courses and the implication is that some would go. The report suggests cutting back first year courses in particular to no more than three per programme (plus one in the summer).

There were other peripheral recommendations on matters such as student advice, marketing, honours and distance teaching.

If you wish to discuss issues raised in the review please take the opportunity to attend meeting and/or contact Aditya Malik extn 6230 AUS Branch Committee.