Questions Raised over Future of BEnvs27 February 2016
Sources have informed Farrago that the Bachelor of Environments will most likely be replaced by a new Bachelor of Design and a new environmental science degree in the following years.
Last week, the University of Melbourne Academic Board approved the new Bachelor of Design. The BDes will be offered in the 2017 VTAC guide.
It is unclear whether the Bachelor of Environments will be on the 2017 VTAC guide. However, it was also mentioned by the a representative of the Provost that the Bachelor of Environments will not be taking new students in 2017, despite the decision not being confirmed by Academic Board.
According to the documentation tabled at Academic Board, majors native to the BEnvs such as Architecture, Spatial Systems and Civil Systems have been proposed under the new BDes degree. In addition, new majors such as Digital Media have also been proposed.
One anonymous source has expressed concern over how these two degrees will be run, arguing that students will be unsure as to how the courses differ.
“This raises serious concerns for existing Bachelor of Environments students. The university will need to ensure the degree is properly taught out and not devalued, and will also need to ensure that future students understand what the changes mean for them”
Farrago also understands that many of the professors present at the Academic Board meeting voted in favour of creating the new degree despite being personally against it.
Furthermore, it is understood that a new undergraduate environmental science degree may be approved in the next few years. The environmental science degree would most likely comprise the more scientific majors from the BEnvs, such as Civil Systems.
Because this environmental science degree has yet to be created, it is understood that in 2017 there will be no intake into these scientific majors.
The Bachelor of Environments is one of the six “New Generation” degrees created under the Melbourne Model curriculum reforms in 2008.
EDIT: A correction has been made to clarify an attribution to a “representative of the Provost” rather than the Provost themselves.