ANUC 與眾校之比較

 

The following is the comparison in terms of entry requirements and course duration among course providers for standard foundation program.

 

Course providers         Entry requirement     Teaching period          Class contact hour

Trinity in Melbourne U      IELTS 6.0             10 months (40 week)         Unknown/week

                          HKCEE 2at C’s 2at D’s (That requirement has not changed since 2009)

 

ANUC                                   IELTS 5.5(min 5 across    28 weeks               17.5 hours/week

                                                All bands)             (Feb 2009-Feb 2011)

                               HKCEE 4 at D’s (That requirement was effective in my study period)

 

RMIT                                      IELTS 5.5                       10 months                 24-26hrs/week

                        HKCEE 4 at D’s (That requirement was effective in my study period)

 

The U. of Western               IELTS 5.5                  40 weeks                        Unknown/week

Australia              (That requirement was effective in 2008) (Assume no less than 20 hr)

 

The U. of Sydney           IELTS 5.5(No band less    40 weeks                      25 hours/week

                                                      Than 5)

                                             HKCEE 4 at D’s  (That requirement was effective in 2010)

 

UNSW                             IELTS 5.5(min 5.5 in writing) 34 weeks                Unknown/week

                               HKCEE 2 at C’s, 2 at D’s (The requirement was effective for 2010-2011)         

Remarks: HKCEE is an open examination in Hong Kong. Students required 15 months more for further studies at matriculation level before entering into the first year of undergraduate level in H.K. during the time I studied in ANUC.

  

Findings: The IELTS requirement for ANUC was comparatively lower than Melbourne University and just kept plateau with other course providers mentioned above. However, the HKCEE requirement for ANUC was not so rigorous compared with certain course providers. As a result, it defied logical principle for ANUC offered such short teaching period with insufficient class contact hour per week for students in mass at similar academic standings. Furthermore, its affiliate ANU claimed to be the Australia’s highest ranked university and among the world’s best, thus more tuition was a logical setting. Please bear in mind in my study period, "The regulations in place included the ESOS Act 2000 and Education Service for Overseas Students Regulations 2001 which set out the legal framework governing the delivery of education to overseas students studying in Australia on a student visa and the National Code 2007. The National Code is a set of nationally consistent standards that governs the protection of oversea students & delivery of courses to those students by provider registered on CRICOS."

It is observed that course providers regarded the National Code 2001 13.2 (full time define) as benchmark for building their course duration and weekly class contact time. (Minimum course duration in terms of week and minimum class contact hour per week mentioned in National Code 2001 were 36 and 20 respectively.) It is clear that the rigidity of 20 class contact hour per week released upon the effective of National Code 2007 in the event of particular student requires workload adjustment in a semester. However, all students require to complete the course in expected duration as CRICOS registered. Foundation Program Standard publicized in mid of 2010, standard 7 states that Standard Foundation Programs must contain a minimum of 720 scheduled course contact hours over not less than 26 weeks and not more than 40 weeks of full-time study. Of course, the default definition of “full time study” is not less 20 hours per week. It is apparent that the minimum total class contact hour per week required in foundation program standard tantamount to the requirement of minimum 720 class contact hour for a program set out in National Code 2001. I cannot devise any reason for ANUC to have a significant dwindle in terms of course duration/class contact hour for the group of students in similar academic standings. The National Foundation Program Standard 1.3 states that “The contents of the curriculum must be open to independent scrutiny by designated authorities with relevant expertise, with sufficient detail supplied to allow evaluation of the equivalence of the course outcomes to those of an Australia Year 12 curriculum”. I deeply believed ANUC’s management acquainted with the standard Australian calendar for Year 12 over the last decade. Refer to “RMIT” program guide 2009, the foundation studies program is an alternative to VCE Year 12 and the program is recognized throughout Australia. The curriculum of Year 12 requires approximately 40 weeks to complete throughout Australia.     

 

The following is the comparison of tuition fee between ANUC foundation program and USFP (University of Sydney Foundation Program)

Course Provider     Commencement           Teaching Period   Weekly Hour      Tuition Fee

ANUC                       Oct 2010                          28 weeks               17.5-19.25         AUD17,200

USFP                         Oct 2010                          34 weeks                 25-30                AUD23,200

U. Western Australia  July 2008                     40 weeks       Assume 20                AUD16,900

RMIT                          Feb 2009                         10 months                25                    AUD16,000

 

ANUC                          17200/(28X(17.5+19.25)/2) = AUD33.43/HR

USFP                             23200/(34X(25+30)/2)  = AUD24.81/HR

U. Western Australia   16900/(40*20) = AUD21.13/HR  

RMIT                                  16000/(Assume 33*25)=AUD19.39/HR

 

Remarks: The tuition fee for two semester foundation program in ANUC was AUD13650 (2008-2009)

 

Findings: The hourly rate for the two semester foundation course in ANUC was 34% higher than the hourly rate for the standard foundation course in University of Sydney.

The hourly rate for the two semester foundation course in the relative period in ANUC was 25.6% higher than the hourly rate for the standard foundation course in University of Western Australia. (The percentage would be higher if weekly class contact hour >20.)

The hourly rate for the two semester foundation course in the relative period in ANUC was 36.82% higher than the hourly rate for the standard foundation course in RMIT.         

 

The official policy prior to 30 June 2012 was that “In the unlikely event that the College is unable to deliver a course in full, the student will be offered a refund of all the course money paid to date. Alternatively, the student may be offered enrolment in a suitable alternative course by the College at no extra cost. The student has the right to choose whether they would prefer a full refund of course fees or to accept a place in another course. Based on the defendant’s evidence (Affidavit annexure marked “D”) “ANUC Notes on meeting undertaken between ACT DEPT of Education & Training & ANUC Friday 18 March 2011.” Two documents presented in the meeting were crucial to the investigation. One was the “Brochure on ANU College Course” and the second was the “Sample Timetable for Foundation Studies Students.” In this connection, no matter the ANUC program guides presented was 2008-2009 or 2009, the course structure kept intact as four subjects per semester. Simultaneously, a subject “Computing Fundamental” was not found in any samples of timetable in ANUC program guide 2008-2009 or 2009. On the contrary, “Computing Fundamental” stipulated as a selective subject in ANUC program guide 2008-2009 I relied as evidence. (National Code 2007 Part D Standard 2.1b states that course content and duration, qualification offered if applicable, modes of study and assessment methods required to be provided to the students must be given to the student before the student acknowledges acceptance (signed or otherwise accepted) of the offer of place.  After all, minimum weekly class contact hour must be calculated on any combination of four subjects in a semester.

All foundation students received the same timetable in the orientation day prior to commencement of teaching. The timetable reveals class session time in each subject that is as same as the one I attached with the complaint letter to ACT Accreditation on 13 September 2010.

 

If all the facts/documents in the meeting presented were as same as the abovementioned, the verdict contradicted to legislative requirements. . 

The personnel of ACT Accreditation ought to notice that the class session time in each subject was insufficient based on the timetable for all students. The normal course of event was four subjects stipulated in each semester. ANUC was still in breach of negligence if they deemed the class contact hour for me was satisfactory. (In every contract for the supply by a corporation in the course of a business of services to a consumer there is an implied warranty that the services will be rendered with due care and skill.

In short, “ACT Accreditation” ought to realize the seriousness of the incident upon receiving my complaint letter. An acute injunction was a must for the time being and subsequent action goes to extend the course duration and class contact hour that align with relevant consistent standard.    

In the event of ANUC reported any infringement voluntarily, it does not mean ANUC bear no liability and able to shift the responsibility to “Tuition Protection Scheme”. ANUC trusted to be a wealthy organization and that was reflected from its unusual course duration and tuition. Hitherto, ANUC have done nothing in terms of announcement and compensation for the insufficient class contact hour/ course duration for all the students involved in due course.

 

Eddie Yee