Imagine if a faculty of science in Australia focused its undergraduate/foundational teaching on the science of the local flora and fauna. Students would learn about kangaroos and eucalyptus tress, about achidnas and banksias, about the funnel-web spider and the Murray cod. Of course, they would also learn about palm trees and dingos, about the cane toad and about invasive weeds. While there would occasionally be upper level electives on comparative anatomy or botany or on species not found locally, those courses would be few and far between, perhaps largely left for specialised postgraduate or later studies.
Further, imagine if the science faculties around the world followed the same model and also focused their undergraduate/foundational degree programs on their own local flora and fauna. Such a situation of university science education might arise around the world if the primary jobs for science graduates were in managing and developing the local flora and fauna, with only occasional work involving foreign or trans-regional species (despite an increasingly interconnected world of flora and fauna). It might be perpetuated by the senior people in the field, who set the employment regulations, and who believe such an intense grounding in local science is necessary for the successful work of the scientist and the country.
Such an approach to science education around the world would mean that it would be difficult for science graduates to move to other countries for work in their field – as they may lack the local knowledge demanded of them by employers and by the regulators of their field. Further (local) studies would be required to then secure employment in that foreign country. If the flora and fauna were too radically different it might even be the case that the newly arrived science graduate would have to start over again, enrolling in the local foundational science degree.
In such a situation we should expect there to be little science student international mobility, especially into the undergraduate/foundational level. After all, why go to the trouble and expense to study the flora and fauna of another country – especially for three to four years when that knowledge will be unlikely to help secure a job back home. Though, if the home has similar flora and fauna it may be that the undergraduate/foundational degree would be acceptable, providing enough substantive knowledge to permit successful work back home. Thus, science studies in California may be suitable for Mexico, or studies in Vietnam would be applicable in Cambodia. But a degree in such a localised science course in Australia would not be of much use in Norway.
Perhaps another approach to science teaching might be to push for an undergraduate/foundational degree in world/comparative flora and fauna, focusing on holistic concepts and transferable skills, perhaps with a few upper level electives or specialized post graduate courses in the local flora and fauna that would then provide the detailed knowledge to work locally (though the basic courses should be sufficient to provide the ability to assimilate and understand the science of the local flora and fauna). Such an approach might reflect an understanding that science is best taught by starting at an holistic and conceptual level, and then moving to the specific if necessary. Such an approach accepts and understands that science is more similar than different across the world. Imagine if that is how science faculties actually taught.
By Colin Picker