|
|
|
|
AGC Submission to Minerals Council of Australia's National Tertiary Education TaskforceThe following is the text of a letter dated 7 April 1998 from the then President of AGC, Dr Geoff Hudson, to Mr R J Carter, Chairman, National Tertiary Education Taskforce, Minerals Council of Australia, regarding the Taskforce paper `Back From the Brink — Reshaping Minerals Tertiary Education' which was released on 2 March 1998. The paper may be accessed via the Minerals Council of Australia's Web site.
RE: NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION TASKFORCE PAPER We commend the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) for their interest in and commitment to minerals-related Tertiary education in Australia. The AGC similarly believes that the future well-being of the Australian minerals industry is dependent on a viable and indeed vibrant Tertiary education sector.
Summary of AGC ResponseThe following key points summarise the AGC's response
OverviewThe discussion paper with its extensive appendices constitutes an important documentation of many of the problems that beset the tertiary education sector, and in particular, we agree that interaction between the tertiary sector and industry is currently on an ad hoc basis. A more systematic interaction would benefit both partners. We also commend the proposed financial commitment of the MCA to the tertiary sector. We believe that such a financial commitment, focused through a body such as the proposed MEC, could provide the framework for a more systematic and mutually beneficial interaction between the minerals industry and the tertiary sector. Such an improved interaction should facilitate exchange programmes of staff between the tertiary education sector, government agencies and the minerals industry, in order that each is better informed about the requirements of the other, and also the student placement programmes in the minerals industry, that are a valuable component of minerals-related tertiary education.
Appreciation of Geoscience-Related IssuesWe feel that the paper is a better balanced document than the 1996 WA Chamber of Mines paper. However, we do have some concerns about the premises and conclusions of the paper. Our most fundamental concern, from which many others flow, is that the paper, in general, considers mining engineering, metallurgy and geoscience collectively, without recognition of the different needs and circumstances of each of these areas. Although the differences are given lip service, for example in the paper's definitions, they are largely ignored in the body of the paper and its conclusions. A lack of research by the Taskforce into the geoscience area, and lack of understanding of it, is apparent in the paper.
Geoscience and the Minerals IndustryThe paper considers that "all three disciplines ... are all largely dependent on the industry for their viability". While the paper does acknowledge that geoscience is less tied to the minerals industry than the other disciplines, the belief that geoscience education serves only the minerals industry appears to permeate its recommendations. Geoscience education must deliver a fundamental understanding of earth processes and materials, and address applications to petroleum, groundwater, engineering, and the environment, as well as, of course, economic minerals. Geoscience professionals are employed in all of these areas, and furthermore, a knowledge of geoscience is required by teachers, town planners, environmental managers and park rangers. Given the downturn in minerals exploration, it is probable that considerably fewer current geoscience graduates will find employment in the minerals industry than the 62% of 1996 graduates that the paper indicates were so employed. Although we recognise the right of the MCA to focus its resources in minerals-related tertiary geoscience education, government funds and tertiary sector resources in the geosciences should not be focused exclusively in minerals-related areas.Undergraduate geoscience education needs to recognise the range of stakeholders including the minerals and petroleum sectors, government agencies, academia and others, and their common requirement for graduates with a solid geoscience education and the ability to apply principles to problem solving. Discipline-based, rather than sector-based collaboration is the preferred model for the geosciences, with the challenge being to involve other stakeholders and to address the strong disincentives that are inherent in the current funding system.
Teaching of Geosciences at Tertiary LevelThe references to "minerals departments" are confusing. We take it to mean a single department covering the areas of mining engineering, metallurgy and geoscience. Geoscience is generally taught in separate departments in Australian universities. While in many cases close links with mining engineering and metallurgy are maintained (e.g. Universities of New South Wales and South Australia), there are several world-class Australian minerals geoscience-related departments that are not closely linked to departments of mining engineering and metallurgy (e.g. Centres at the Universities of Tasmania and Western Australia). Such links are not a pre-requisite for a world-class minerals geoscience education, and it would be a mistake to try to shoe-horn geoscience departments into the "minerals departments" which the paper seems to envisage. This concern is not exclusive to the geoscience area. The links between mining engineering and other engineering disciplines, and those between metallurgy and chemical engineering, are at least as important as their links with geoscience.
Nexus Between Education and TrainingA positive feature of the paper is the recognition a graduate should have a solid background in the science rather than be vocationally trained. The nexus between education and training has long been debated. The key role of the tertiary geoscience sector is to provide a training in the fundamental sciences, and to provide a desire and ability for lifelong learning. The expectation that a graduate should `hit the ground running' in all aspects of a professional career is unrealistic. In particular we do not believe that graduates should be more fully acquainted with operational issues such as occupational health and safety. The undergraduate curriculum is full, and with ever-expanding scientific and technical knowledge we do not believe that `OH&S 201' should replace `Mineralogy and Petrology 201'. Issues such as occupational health and safety and how business decisions are made are best addressed in the full context of a professional career and as part of continuing education programmes.
Reduction in "Minerals Departments"The paper suggests that the "number of minerals departments needs to be reduced by up to 50%". The rationale for the reduction of departments is presumably that the funding for the closed departments would be consolidated within surviving departments. Unfortunately the paper is here naive regarding the operation of the tertiary sector. Firstly, the closure of a department within one university does not lead to funds flowing to cognate departments in other universities. Funds are simply re-allocated within the university that has closed its "minerals department". Given that universities are funded on an EFTSU basis, the universities left without "minerals departments" would simply encourage their students to study other disciplines. Australian undergraduates do not generally leave their home state to study, and many are reluctant to even travel to universities on the other side of the city from their home. The offer of scholarships may attract a few students interstate but experience suggests that the number will be small. If there were improved mechanisms for focusing the government's funding of geoscience education within the tertiary sector, then consolidation would be a worthwhile goal. However, given current EFTSU-driven funding formulas, the effect is likely to be exactly the opposite of that desired, i.e. the loss to the minerals industry of a significant number of very capable students. A corollary of the above is that there must be an even geographic spread of "minerals departments" across Australia.
Implementation of Minerals Education Council (MEC) ProposalAs previously stated, we applaud the MCA's proposed financial support of the tertiary sector and recognise its right to focus its resources where it sees fit. However, the proposal to set up a MEC, and to call for submissions from interested institutions to set up a network of minerals education centres carries many substantial difficulties in practice. The paper envisages that $2.5 million would be required to set up the administrative structures, and $20 million to implement the various recommendations. It is proposed these funds will come from the industry, universities and government. Full funding would need to be committed at the start of the process in order to ensure, for example, that one does not create a major administrative structure without funds to support tertiary education. We believe it is unlikely that the envisaged level of funding can be realised. With regard to government funding of geoscience, we re-iterate that such should not be focused exclusively in minerals-related areas. The operating budget of the universities is, of course, derived from government. The universities have no unallocated funds to support an MEC, and would be highly unlikely to provide funding for an MEC that may or may not support that university's "minerals department(s)". Finally, given the current depressed state of the minerals industry, guarantees of long-term funding from that sector are unlikely to be realised easily.With regard to the accreditation of courses and departments, the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy have already commenced such a programme. The extensive documentation required for this process has imposed a significant load on University staff. Combined with the level of documentation required by the Federal Government through the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, accreditation by the MEC would further increase the administrative burden of University staff, and divert them from their core functions of teaching and research. Furthermore, we caution that the accreditation exercise is fraught with difficulty and must be undertaken extremely thoroughly by highly skilled accreditors without preconceived notions of the merit of courses and departments. There is much more to the quality of an education than a course structure such as illustrated in Figure 3.1 of the paper. Superb minerals geoscience teachers and courses may become excluded from the MEC network with an undoubtedly severe impact as their access to industrial support is curtailed and the validity of their education programme questioned. Furthermore, the quality of departments waxes and wanes with time, and with the flux of staff. Implicit in the accreditation process is the notion that successful departments will maintain their standards indefinitely.
ConclusionThe AGC considers the National Tertiary Education Taskforce's Discussion Paper to be a valuable contribution to the debate on future directions and strategies for tertiary education relevant to the minerals sector. We fully support the development of a more consistent framework for interaction between industry and the tertiary education sector. However, there needs to be a clearer recognition of the distinct educational and skills requirements of geoscientists. The creation of an MEC also has a number of difficulties in practice that need to be more fully addressed.The AGC is grateful for having the opportunity to respond to the Taskforce Discussion Paper and would be willing to avail itself of any opportunity to expand on the issues raised in this response. (signed)
|
The Australian Geoscience Council Inc. © 1999 - 2003 |
