More detail needed on proposed university

As a local who claims we need a truly Central Coast University, I note the proposal of the Chancellor Institute (CCN 395).

Perhaps it has the potential to be what I and others envisage.

But much more is required than a few undergraduate courses and Master’s degree provisions in liaison with industry.

If the Chancellor Institute is serious about creating a university, planning must acknowledge the differences between it and a tertiary college or special-purpose institute.

The concern of a university is knowledge—creating, critiquing, conserving and communicating it with students and with others nationally and internationally.

Money supports these endeavours, not the other way around.

Perhaps some research is in mind, but this is not clear, given that “Master’s degrees by course work” are common practice these days.

Among the academic establishment, there is increasing concern that managerialism and vocationalism within universities are destroying the traditional “community of scholars”’.

This is acceptable if we want universities to be very efficient machines churning out people for narrowly-defined jobs.

Is this what is intended?

I claim that being a valued professional in this and future Australia demands that we are comfortable interacting in diverse and unexpected ways, whether in our paid work or as community members.

A rich university education contributes, not just through some interdisciplinary studies, but also by informal interaction beyond one’s own discipline.

For me, though in a full-time job, as a Health Sciences student it was in drama, fencing, the canteen and attending public lectures.

There is no evidence in the article that such opportunities are envisaged, nor that faculties will extend beyond Business and IT, Allied Health and Early Education.

Furthermore, as the result of research and critical thinking, a university has a responsibility to contribute to the world’s stock of fundamental knowledge, not just to sell its skills to industry.

The latter is perhaps implied; I see no evidence of the former.

COVID and increasing proportions of students in concurrent employment have made distance delivery the preferred mode of provision for many.

It also aids in providers capturing distant enrolments.

Is this what is meant by being a “life-style university”?

Let’s hope that such delivery would be only a part of course provision.

Otherwise the term “university” would be inappropriate and “Central Coast” irrelevant.

Email, Jun 24
Sonnie Hopkins, Tascott