Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small
Business and Education Committee
From: Colin Hinrichsen [C.Hinrichsen@utas.edu.au]
Sent: Friday, 2 February 2001 5:12 PM
To: eet.sen@aph.gov.au
Subject: Submission to Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small
Business and Education References Committee.
Submission to the senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business
and Education References Committee (The capacity of public universities
to
meet Australia's higher education needs)
From: Colin Hinrichsen MDS, MSc, PhD, FRACDS formerly Associate Professor
in the Division of Anatomy and Physiology,(retired Dec 2000) University
of
Tasmania.
My home address is : 60 Norma St Howrah 7018 Tasmania (Phone AH 0362477637,
AW 0362262657, email C.Hinrichsen@utas.edu.au)
I am unable to attend a meeting of the committee because I am going to
a
teaching position at Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
on
14th Feb 2001
I wish to address some of the terms of reference of the committee giving
some reasons why I consider that standards have decreased in the Medical
Faculty and will adversely impact on the ability of this University to
meet
Australia's higher education needs.
Re a (iii) (Quality and diversity of teaching) and e, (attracting and
retaining staff):
When I came to Tasmania in the early 70s the then Department of Anatomy
had a Professor, Associate Professor (me) and 9 other full time academic
staff to teach 50 students. I have been "retired" at the end
of last year
because I have reached 65 years and it was expressed by the HOD (and
deputy
Dean) in a staff meeting at the beginning of last year that this would
contribute substantially to an advantageous saving of funds for the
division.
I am to be replaced by a technician who will be transferred to the
academic staff. He has no formal training in Anatomy and no clinical
training so he is unable to give students the clinical application of
their
anatomical knowledge. When I "left" the division, the staff
had diminished
from 11 to 2.5 permanent staff members, the number of students gone from
50
to 75 and Anatomy had gone from a 240 hour subject to a 120 hour subject.
Although it is the basis of all clinical examination as well as surgery,
anatomy now carries only half of the total mark value of a subject. It
has been amalgamated with Human Biology (a general introductory course
aimed primarily for non-medical students) into a "dumbed down"
subject
called Integrated Structure and Function. In this course, for example,
students now spend 6 minutes at a station in the laboratory looking at
an
eye. This is hardly the public's expectation of what represents an
adequately "trained" medical professional and not enough to
put Australia
at the cutting edge of modern medical training.
A student with 20% grade in Anatomy nevertheless is able to pass because
of his combined mark with Human Biology (which no one ever fails).
Re b(ii) (appropriately qualified graduates): In 1999, one student ....
had only
completed half of the Anatomy requirements (in 1997, he
intermitted in 1998 on psychiatric grounds) of studying the entire body.
He appealed against his failure and I went before a committee having
been
told by the associate dean that "the student's mother was a medical
practitioner and his father a judge - you know". The student was
given a
separate course of study (which he failed to attend later stating that
he
did not find it stimulating) and re-examined by an external examiner
(Professor C. Wendell Smith). Although I was course coordinator, I was
specifically disqualified from teaching or re-examining him. He failed
again and appealed again. In all, I set 8 examinations for him only two
of
which he attended (and failed). He was passed by the second appeals
committee and to this day has not been required to show that he has any
anatomical knowledge of the head, neck, thorax, abdomen or pelvis. Other
students know of this case and it is devastating to those who really
try.
Re b(ii) (appropriately - qualified graduates): Last year the Dean
imposed "normalisation" of marks onto our examining procedure.
"Normalising" means that if the peak of the (hopefully) bell
shaped curve
of student marks is 50 one year then 40 the next, 40 becomes the pass
mark
for that year. In Anatomy, there is a body of fundamental knowledge that
does not change so that it is reasonably possible to say we can be aware
of
better or poorer performance by students from year to year (the femur
was
the femur last year and in all probability will be the femur next year)
Normalisation may have some merit in dealing with populations in some
disciplines but it should not be able to bolster the marks of individuals
and cannot be satisfactory particularly for medical students whose poor
performance can lead to the death of a patient.
Yet another retrograde step is the arbitrary pass mark dictated by the
Dean
which seems to change each year. For some years it was necessary to obtain
49% to be granted a supplementary examination, then it was reduced to
47%
to obtain a "faculty pass" and now it is 40%!.
Re d (Equal opportunity to participate in higher education): I have been
disturbed at the insistence of the Dean that students should be admitted
into the Medical School primarily on the basis of a Medical and Health
Science Admission Test put together by administrators of the University
of
Newcastle. This trite "test" is supposed to establish necessary
attitudes
and habits and suitability for training in the Medical School.
It is very clear from some of the questions published in the Mercury
Newspaper (Jan 4, 2001) that academic standards or ability are not the
most
important issues for entry into what is an increasingly complex profession.
The article in the Mercury quoted the case of a girl (Miss Beth Trevor)
who
missed admission into the Medical school because, although she had top
marks in the HSC ( Tertiary Entrance score, 99.1), she failed the U.
Med.
and Health Sciences Administration Test.
I would draw your attention to a test that I ran in the department of
Dr
Roger Short's (University of Melbourne) questionnaire which showed that
27%
of the class subscribe to the literal translation of the Bible (Old
Testament)! One student, now in fourth year, confronted other students
with the assertion that disease is caused by sin. He then approached
me
following a lecture in which I described evolutionary implications of
jaw
structure stating that he had been warned of false prophets like me and
branded me an Anti-Christ"! In spite of a "training" in
Human Biology, he
thinks that dinosaurs were placed in the ark in egg form! Yet this student
and the other third of the class are encouraged into the medical program
on
non-academic grounds. Their fundamentalist beliefs are supported by the
Dean (see Med J. Australia 169: 653-8, 1998).
Re b(iii) (adequacy of campus infrastructure and resources: In the last
10
years, I have purchased some 4 computers mostly committed to special
research projects but doubling up to produce student teaching material
and
answering departmental administration requirements. The vice - Chancellor
has stated in the University newsletter (UniTas) that the staff must
engage
in preparing computer based instruction.
I have established a web page for students of two texts in Anatomy which
now require associated illustrations. The computer from which this
submission has been prepared is 5 years old and cannot handle images.
I
approached the HOD about a new machine (I am now an Honorary Research
Associate) but it appears that the department has only 2 computers bought
by the University. The remainder have all been purchased privately or
from
grants and I was told that if one does not have money for a computer
or
upgrade, too bad! This matter is one of internal management but must
impact adversely on quality of teaching and the University appears not
to
have a policy with regard to computer backup in teaching. One technician
serves the preclinical building, Sandy Bay, the Clinical School in Hobart,
the Health Sciences department in Launceston and the Burnie campus.
Thank you for your consideration.
Colin Hinrichsen