Inquiry into the Role of Institutes of TAFE
Submissions

This document has been scanned from the original printed submission. It may contain some errors

Submission 25

Denis Whitfield

SUBMISSION TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING

23 October, 1997

While I believe that at some time in the future the reverse may be true, (it is interesting to note the introduction at the University of Sydney of an undergraduate degree as a pre requisite to enrolment in medicine and more recently the intention to offer a four year degree in liberal arts) what seems to be generally thought to be most important for universities is to offer specialist or vocational education (ne training). But, mostly, school leavers do not know what they want as a career, are unsure what work will be available to them on graduation, want time to make up their minds, seek flexibility in course structure, and need opportunity to change direction. This assertion is supported by the Sydney Morning Herald of 25th and 26th Feb which quotes two recent reports on university eduction as saying that students leaving high school and entering university are often ill prepared to make decisions about their future careers.

In addition, shortcomings of having (only) a specialist education include a reduced capacity to accommodate change and a restricted ability to think outside of the paradigms established by the discipline. As well, there is always the real chance that you simply get to study in the wrong specialisation - the one that disappears as a career prospect just as the period of study draws to an end.

The irony is that for new university students ill prepared to make decisions about their careers, the least useful offerings are vocational courses. What is more useful for the new university student (and to humanity in general I believe) is encouragement to pursue a good general eduction (not training) that prepares them to make an informed choice about the direction (I'm not sure about the term career any more) they would like their working lives to take. As importantly - for us all I believe - a general education helps to establish an understanding of the place our own small contribution has in the history of civilisation. For many students, what they know best when they leave school is what they don't want to pursue at University.

Generally, I am inclined to the notion that Universities should still be first responsible for the provision of general education. It is probably the case that most university entrants know what they are not interested in and so I have sometimes thought that universities should offer only four degrees at the undergraduate level - a Bachelor of Science for students who want their futures in mathematics, physics and chemistry, a Bachelor of Human and Environmental Studies for those who wish to work somewhere in human or animal medicine, in psychology, in ecological science and so on, a Bachelor of Arts for students who have a love for history, literature, and the social sciences, and a Bachelor of Creative Arts for students who will become our writers, performers and visual artists. In this higher education model, graduates from these general education courses would then move into more specific post graduate training courses offered by universities (perhaps) or by other specialist training institutions such as TAFE.

What I am arguing is the value of a good generalist education. On the other hand, it is naive not also to be pragmatic in a university and broader community that holds corporatism and pragmatism as paradigms for decision making. In addition, it is clear that for a number of students leaving school and for others who are graduates of more general education courses, we need to have quite specific vocational training opportunities. I believe that the first role of Institutes of Technical and Further Education should be to provide training.

In terms of aim, content, pedagogical style, and outcome, one can distinguish between education and training. In the past, Universities have felt comfortable about providing an education and, by and large, left training to guilds, employers, private enterprise, and to the TAFE sector.

I strongly recommend that the role of universities and Institutes of Technical and Further Education be kept quite separate with the TAFE sector being responsible for the provision of quality training rather than of general education. I can see a restructured TAFE sector even providing training in medicine for instance. Universities should concentrate on the provision of education and be the centres for research that leads to the generation of new knowledge, the advancement of technology, and the development of our understanding of civilisation.

Something that we must avoid is the relegation (consciously or not) of one sector to a lower position of funding or importance than another. Both education and research (that I argue Universities should be principally involved in) and training (which I argue TAFE should be doing) are necessary but must be seen by the community as equal in value - the only difference is what the sectors do. My fear is that (more likely) the TAFE sector will aspire to being more like universities. This has clearly happened before and I think it will be to the detriment of the community if it continues to the point that TAFE and Universities are doing the same things with different levels of understanding, expertise, commitment, and sense of purpose.

Back to top