Notes from AUS Arts Future meeting 17 May

Points raised for discussion

• Requirement for different domains in major/minor combination
• Definition of Human Expression domain
• Incompatibility between BA review and financial requirements
• Is breadth currently lacking in the BA?
• Does CUAP need to be consulted?
• Where is evidence of harm/lack of quality in current system?

Feedback on process

• Members of committee were appointed not elected – there is a tendency to hand-pick committees
• Little faith that opinions will be listened to
• Feeling left out of process
• Staff in invidious position if question process: “don’t you trust your colleagues?”
• Feeling that panel genuinely want contributions
• No opportunity to engage earlier in process, so can only react to what has been given
• Not allowed to discuss review directly with panel members? (The internal reference group members were not expected to speak on behalf Arts Future project)

Discussion

• Requirement for different domains in major/minor combination
  • Approve of idea of breadth, but mechanism unnecessarily complex
  • Market driven?
  • Requirement for major and minor to be in different domains will rule out many common double majors, e.g. English & History
  • Idea of domains contradictory within document – will individual courses or whole programmes be in domains? Requirement for major and minor to be in different domains implies programmes, but document also says domains only apply to courses at 100-level
  • Many programmes e.g. Māori could fit into any of the four domains
  • Administration problems: students will need more advice – more student advisors? Current advisors are not well placed for this role, better to have academic staff providing pastoral role.
  • Needs to be huge benefit to overcome inherent problems and extra administration – where is the gain?
  • Good that review addresses problems of increasing competitiveness for EFTS, but complexity of structure is not the remedy.
  • Problem of staff not wanting to send students to other departments and lose EFTS – this could be addressed by keeping requirement for major and minor?
  • Is only requirement for domains to solve inter-departmental competition?
• Definition of Human Expression domain
  • Where else is it used (other University)?
  • What sort of concept is it?
  • Lumps together language acquisition and sculpture
• Incompatibility between BA review and financial requirements
  • “Cafeteria” model is EFTS driven – how will having required courses affect EFTS?
  • Courses often double- or co-coded because of financial pressure
  • Trying to get rid of proliferation of courses – more courses means same number of students spread more thinly, but more work for staff
  • Small programmes make decisions about courses on financial basis
  • How can question of quality of co-coded courses be answered?
  • Small programmes already struggling may not be able to offer sufficient courses for major, so kicked back to minor, and can’t offer Honours – recipe for two-tier system
• Is breadth currently lacking in the BA?
  • Most programmes already advise students to take other complementary subjects = encouraging breadth
• Does CUAP need to be consulted?
  • Changing structure of degree, not content, but potential to reduce number of Honours courses
• Where is evidence of harm/lack of quality in current system?
  • Suggestion that current structure is cafeteria insulting – current structure not ramshackle, but has evolved in response to reviews that have taken place for 15 years.
  • Can’t be a total cafeteria – prerequisites already provide structure
  • Implication is that courses driven by student choice, but not necessarily true
  • Some programmes able to put on exciting courses that attract students – short sighted
• Concept of speciality not mentioned in document – e.g. Gender Studies from undergraduate to postgraduate only offered at Canterbury, but days are numbered
• Document silent on link between undergraduate and postgraduate
  • Postgraduate-only programmes?
  • Will programmes with majors be required to offer Honours programme? – small programmes might put all their resources into offering enough courses for a major, nobody left to teach Honours
• Core competencies
  • Idea of core competencies good – preferable to core courses
  • Still conservative – “elective” courses may be future area of growth in subject e.g. animals and philosophy
  • Danger that particular courses are identified as core, others sidelined
  • Programmes should identify complementary competencies alongside core competencies – preferred minors
  • Programmes identifying complementary minors would address issue of competition
  • “Competencies” sounds like NCEA – don’t want to become content driven
  • Already state aims and objectives for courses, competencies just formalising this
• Three 100-level courses
  • Core competencies can be transferable e.g. English offers Academic Writing, valuable to whole university – shouldn’t count against three 100-level courses
  • Exception should be made for all courses with transferable competencies?
  • Logic of three 100-level courses works for social sciences, but not for humanities – too few
  • Clarification needed: if course taught more than once per year, does that count as more than one course?
  • Only a few years since pathways were introduced, and programmes encouraged to create 100-level courses leading into pathways – will have to drop those courses now
• National Centre for Research on Europe
  • teach BA degree but outside College of Arts
  • many issues
    • why is research centre offering undergraduate degree?
    • use of contract staff for teaching
    • offers courses that could be taught by Arts programmes
    • duplication
    • unhealthy competition
  • review raises issue of NCRE, need to follow up
• Melbourne model
  • why Melbourne?
  • Australia is very different to NZ – will model work here?