Is Hanmer an architect?
Workplace health and safety constrains laboratory design and usage.
Shared labs with a high hazard rating introduce major costs and inconvenience to alternate users – costs which are unfunded. Other activities (failing to separate organic chemicals/strong oxidizing agents) are just dangerous. Simulated laboratories fail to develop practical skills and a real world appreciation – the action becomes ‘a game’.
In many disciplines in many Australian universities laboratories and practicals have been whittled back as a cost saving measure – no names, no packdrill – but it has been a general reaction to tightening teaching budgets in the face of compliance issues and desperate cost shifting.
This makes a fundamental mistake, conflating the generation and application of knowledge.
A discipline is a method for generating and evaluating knowledge claims and the body of knowledge generated by that method. Without understanding the discipline a person is unable to know whether a statement is true or not or whether or not it is appropriately applied, in an interdisciplinary or disciplinary setting.
I think student numbers are declining not because of the quality (or lack thereof) of teaching. The reason for this global decline is quite simple, really: Today’s early- and mid-career researchers are constantly in fear of losing their jobs and chasing funding to support their salaries. The lack of public and industry investment into scientific research (I mean secure jobs for researchers not fancy equipment and posh looking facilities!) simply means that no student in his or her right mind would chose science as a career path! If you want to start a family you need some level of job security. Science is not offering this security at all. Simple as that. You want to attract more students? Well, create jobs for scientists!
Cannot be multidisciplinary without disciplines: Crick was a physicist, Watson a biologist, and Wilkins a chemist. You need depth to contribute to a multidisciplinary collaboration.
Breadth at the expense of depth is the worst thing to do in the current education system (e.g. 3 years of undergraduate studies). What we would get would be graduates with a bit of knowledge of everything, but which is so superficial that no company/business will employ them. Efficient and successful multidisciplinarity means involving experts from multiple disciplines.
All the comments above are absoultely spot on. Multidisciplinary science is not about being a jack of all trades. It’s impossible to be expert at everything. Multidsicplinary science is about collaboration between experts that have in depth knowledge of their specific areas. They are expert enough to bridge the gaps between what superficially look like disparit fields. The article written by Geoff Hanmer takes this superficial view.
The evidence is that students LIKE practical teaching. They enjoy putting theory into practice. What is your source of information Geoff? It is noted that you do not reference any hard data.
Is Hanmer an architect?
Workplace health and safety constrains laboratory design and usage.
Shared labs with a high hazard rating introduce major costs and inconvenience to alternate users – costs which are unfunded. Other activities (failing to separate organic chemicals/strong oxidizing agents) are just dangerous. Simulated laboratories fail to develop practical skills and a real world appreciation – the action becomes ‘a game’.
In many disciplines in many Australian universities laboratories and practicals have been whittled back as a cost saving measure – no names, no packdrill – but it has been a general reaction to tightening teaching budgets in the face of compliance issues and desperate cost shifting.
This makes a fundamental mistake, conflating the generation and application of knowledge.
A discipline is a method for generating and evaluating knowledge claims and the body of knowledge generated by that method. Without understanding the discipline a person is unable to know whether a statement is true or not or whether or not it is appropriately applied, in an interdisciplinary or disciplinary setting.
Gavin Moodie
I think student numbers are declining not because of the quality (or lack thereof) of teaching. The reason for this global decline is quite simple, really: Today’s early- and mid-career researchers are constantly in fear of losing their jobs and chasing funding to support their salaries. The lack of public and industry investment into scientific research (I mean secure jobs for researchers not fancy equipment and posh looking facilities!) simply means that no student in his or her right mind would chose science as a career path! If you want to start a family you need some level of job security. Science is not offering this security at all. Simple as that. You want to attract more students? Well, create jobs for scientists!
Cannot be multidisciplinary without disciplines: Crick was a physicist, Watson a biologist, and Wilkins a chemist. You need depth to contribute to a multidisciplinary collaboration.
Breadth at the expense of depth is the worst thing to do in the current education system (e.g. 3 years of undergraduate studies). What we would get would be graduates with a bit of knowledge of everything, but which is so superficial that no company/business will employ them. Efficient and successful multidisciplinarity means involving experts from multiple disciplines.
All the comments above are absoultely spot on. Multidisciplinary science is not about being a jack of all trades. It’s impossible to be expert at everything. Multidsicplinary science is about collaboration between experts that have in depth knowledge of their specific areas. They are expert enough to bridge the gaps between what superficially look like disparit fields. The article written by Geoff Hanmer takes this superficial view.
Come have a look at our labs, Geoff. We have 2000 1st year students and the lab is full to capacity all day every day of the working week.
The evidence is that students LIKE practical teaching. They enjoy putting theory into practice. What is your source of information Geoff? It is noted that you do not reference any hard data.