Broad Standardisation and Evaluation of the Argument Essay Example
Broad Standardisation and Evaluation of Higher Education Argument
Expanding tertiary education without checking it is not sustainable (1). This is because (1.1) it satisfies greedy administrators’ egos and (1.2) it has created for some group of woeful academics a sheltered workshop. (2) A society that is increasingly ever dependent on education has been created. (2.1) Some degree courses such as law have become like double degrees or postgraduate degrees that are full-fee paying. (2.2) There are now some professional fields which are exclusively graduate entry (3) Colleges of Advanced Education have been destroyed (4) TAFE sector has been annihilated (5) and post-school education privatisation has brought educational suicide closer. (6) Education and training should be provided by the employers. (7) Vocational training and professional education costs has been transferred to individuals. (8) People now spend most of their lifetime in universities and schools. (8.) Until mid-20s, people may not become known. (9) After education, individuals emerge with debt. (10) There is a scramble in obtaining master’s degree coursework to be still competitive at places of work. (11) Others will look for unpaid internship for a start. (12) No need for practicum that is in many courses. (12.1) A person who is working and studying co-operatively in area of choice does not need practicum. (13) General rule is to have no course in University having internship or a practical component. (13.1) Universities teach people about theory and (13.2) Colleges of Advanced Education and TAFE teaches people on how to earn a living. (14) The present education system is expensive. (14.1) Federal government pays per student about $10,500 to the domestic students whose number is 888,000. (15.2) Reliance on international students whose number is 888,000 to generate enough money for higher education is not good. (15) Course provision has inexplicable overlaps across the two private and 37 public universities in Sydney. (16) In Australia, there are four universities having students greater than 50,000 and four having less than 10,000 students. (17) Restoring of other avenues of training and education in creation of highly skilled nation. (18) Returning of some commerce and industry courses in ensuring training is relevant and no oversupply. (18.1) The costs will not be individually borne alone. (19) Reduction of universities that offers similar courses within short distance from each other and scramble for students. (C) Sydney should have only one university but with branches everywhere.
Evaluation of the Argument
The argument presented in the article is focusing on giving reasons as to why Sydney should only have one university. The author is of the opinion that the university sector should be reduced and made more exclusive as opposed to expanding it as a way of fighting increased competition. In the article, the author starts by defending his position by outlining the reasons why tertiary education should not be expanded. The main argument is that tertiary education unchecked expansion is not sustainable. It only satisfies the administrators who are greedy. The vast education sector has created sheltered workshop for shoddy academics according to the argument in the article. Tertiary education should be quality and this should stressed by the administrators of university education. The society is increasingly dependent on education and this is the reality of Australian tertiary education. The employers should pay for education of the student in courses that involves practical such as nursing. In this regard, the argument is that university sector should be reduced and to be only available to small percentage of the population. It is also argued in this article that the present education system is expensive. The country is over dependent on international students in satisfying the growing needs of education. Inexplicable overlaps in the provision of courses across two private and 37 public universities in Sydney calls for their reduction according to the argument in the article. For training to be relevant some courses should be returned to commerce and industry is being argued in the article. In addition, returning of some courses will also ensure no oversupply of courses and costs will not be individually incurred alone. In ensuring quality education, there is need to reduce universities that offer similar courses and are located within short distance from each other. In defeating both worldwide competition and mass production of tertiary education, the conclusion of the argument is that only one university should be in Sydney but with branches everywhere.
The argument that university education should only be reserved for 5 per cent of the total population or less in Australia in ensuring quality education may be misleading. Quality education has no correlation with the number of population that accesses it. Rather, quality education depends on the systems that are in place and can comfortably provide quality education to the people. Good education systems, proper curriculum, enough facilities and quality teaching staff is what is needed in ensuring that the population enjoys quality university education. Many people can get university education without any compromise to its quality if only all education stakeholders are involved in the process of laying out the structures for its provision. Let assume that only top five percent of the total population are given a chance to access university education in Australia as proposed in the argument. Does this way ensure quality education and thus make Australian educational sector the envy of the whole world?. I disagree because quality education does not depend on how many people get the opportunity of accessing it. A large percentage of population can have an opportunity of accessing education if there are good infrastructures and resources that support the university education. Quality education is realised when enough resources exist that ensure that all the needs of learners are sufficiently taken care of regardless of the number.
Quality education is argued in the article that it can also be achieved if universities that offers similar courses and are close to each other are reduced. This argument holds no water as the number of universities and quality education seems to be distinct elements. The inferred position is that reducing universities having close proximity to each and offering similar courses guarantees quality university education. Universities can be many in one location if the population that it serves are also many. In this case, quality is not affected by similarity of the courses being offered by these universities; rather it is the universities ability to provide education of the highest standards to the population. The inverted preposition that the argument tries to bring across is that there is no need for universities to offer similar courses when they are close to each other when there are no enough population who need it. In reality, Sydney city has a large population that needs university education. Universities in Sydney should be many if the population that needs higher education are also many. The conclusion of the argument that Sydney should only have one university but with branches everywhere as a way of ensuring quality education is not a logical argument and is not back well by its premises.
The argument that courses such as management, nursing, accounting, optometry and teaching level of standards have come down as its provision is concerned after they were provided in university is misleading. Although I agree that the level of standards in provision of these courses in universities may have significantly reduced, but there are still universities in Sydney that provide these courses at a decent standards. Colleges that still provide these courses may be teaching these courses at lower standards than the universities. I agree with the arguer of the article that some courses such as nursing should not be provided in the universities, but using it as a premise in justifying its conclusion that Sydney should only have one university is plausible. A course can be provided in a university and still offered at the highest standards. One university is not the solution to dilapidated standards of education in some courses and it’s discontinued from being offered in universities, but strong frameworks for teaching these courses is what is needed. The argument could have been made stronger if evidence that after courses such as nursing was offered in universities led to decrease competencies of nurses for example had it have been provided. There is no statistical evidence in the whole argument to back the claim that level of standards of education has decreased in management course for instance after it was provided in the university. Furthermore, no evidential statements has been made in comparison of quality of graduates in university and those in colleges of Advanced education taking the same course.
Higher education is becoming expensive and the federal government has to pay around $10,500 to every student is true and well argued in the article. International students are the ones that are helping the current higher education to be sustainable. Although it is true that the present education system is expensive, this premise is invalid to the argument conclusion that Sydney should only have one university. Reducing the number of universities and making it exclusive to small percentage of the population does not automatically make higher education system less expensive. In fact, education system will be more expensive if number of students who accessing it are reduced due to economies of scale. Restoration of other ways of getting education and training in order to have highly skilled nation is needed is a premise that is valid. University should not be the only avenue of getting higher education but other avenues such as colleges and training polytechnics. Returning of some courses such as nursing and teaching back to commerce and industry for relevant training is a good suggestion and supports the conclusion that Sydney should reduce its universities to one. The return of these courses back to relevant industries is an inverted proposition as this will automatically reduce need for more universities. Moreover, the costs will also be shared between the students and the industry players reducing the burden of one individual. In this regard, the conclusion is supported and the arguer makes a valid argument.
Athanasou J 2014, Why higher education needs to be more like BMW than Ford, accessed 24 May 2014, http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-higher-education-needs-to-be-more-like-bmw-than-ford-20140427-zr0cw.html
More Important Things