Graduate professional entry courses in accounting and law · 2017. 10. 29. · case with all courses. The interviews with academics showed that, in some cases, the academic standards

Graduate professional entry courses in accounting and law 1

Graduate professional entry courses in accounting and law

Final report 2012

RMIT University (Lead institution) Professor Margaret Jackson (Project leader)

Joann Cattlin Associate Professor Robert Inglis

Linda Kam Lillian Lowe

Mary Toohey Lauren Vasrelli

Curtin University

Professor Glennda Scully (Local project leader) Associate Professor Stacey Porter

Carolyn Nothling

Queensland University of Technology Professor Rosalind Mason (Local project leader)

Donna Cooper Associate Professor Sheryl Jackson

Sarah Jones

Report authors Professor Margaret Jackson, Joann Cattlin, Lillian Lowe,

Professor Glennda Scully, Associate Professor Stacey Porter, Professor Rosalind Mason, Associate Professor Sheryl Jackson,

Donna Cooper

Project website http://www.rmit.edu.au/teaching/altc/professionalpathways

http://www.rmit.edu.au/teaching/altc/professionalpathways


Support for this project has been provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd., an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council or the Australian Government.

This work is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Australia Licence. Under this Licence you are free to copy, distribute, display and perform the work and to make derivative works.

Attribution: You must attribute the work to the original authors and include the following statement: Support for the original work was provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd, an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

Non-commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

Share Alike: If you alter, transform, or build on this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to this one.

For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the licence terms of this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you obtain permission from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit or send a letter to: Creative Commons 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor San Francisco California 94105 USA. Requests and inquiries concerning these rights should be addressed to: Office for Learning and Teaching Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education GPO Box 9880, Location code N255EL10 Sydney NSW 2001 or to 2012 ISBN 978 1 921916 51 9 (PDF) ISBN 978 1 921916 52 6 (Softcover)

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/au/mailto:[email protected]


Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 7 Organisations and Abbreviations ............................................................................................. 8 Chapter 1 Overview of the Study .......................................................................................... 9

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Outcomes .................................................................................................................. 9 1.3 Research question and aims ................................................................................... 10 1.3.1 Research question .................................................................................................. 10 1.3.2 Aims ........................................................................................................................ 10 1.3.3 Significance of the study ......................................................................................... 11 1.3.4 The approaches to graduate entry courses by the two professions ........................ 14 1.3.5 Professional training after graduation...................................................................... 14 1.3.6 Limitations of the study ........................................................................................... 15 1.3.7 Structure of the report ............................................................................................. 15

Chapter 2 Literature Review – Masters Courses ................................................................ 16

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 16 2.2 Development of masters coursework degrees ........................................................ 16 2.3 Challenges to status of masters coursework degrees ............................................. 19 2.4 Masters degrees internationally .............................................................................. 21 2.5 Professional entry courses in accounting and law .................................................. 23 2.6 Master of Professional Accounting .......................................................................... 23 2.7 Accreditation issues for MPAs ................................................................................ 25 2.8 Juris Doctor ............................................................................................................. 26 2.9 Graduate LLB issues............................................................................................... 27 2.10 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 28

Chapter 3 Academic Standards .......................................................................................... 29

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 29 3.1.1 Defining academic standards .................................................................................. 29 3.2 Recent developments in academic standards ......................................................... 31 3.3 Strengthening of the AQF ....................................................................................... 31 3.4 AQF masters descriptors ........................................................................................ 34 3.5 Differences between 2007 and 2011 revised AQF descriptors for masters degrees 36 3.6 Australian Universities Quality Agency.................................................................... 38 3.7 Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency .................................................. 38 3.8 Australian Learning and Teaching Council Academic Standards Project Threshold Learning Outcomes ............................................................................................................ 39 3.9 Measuring learning standards ................................................................................. 42 3.10 Mission based compacts and performance funding ................................................ 43 3.11 International developments ..................................................................................... 43 3.12 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 44

Chapter 4 Research Methodology ......................................................................................... 45

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 45 4.2 Rationale for methodology ...................................................................................... 45 4.3 Process ................................................................................................................... 45 4.4 Project management, communication and dissemination ....................................... 47 4.5 Changes to process ................................................................................................ 48


4.6 Who we interviewed ................................................................................................ 49 4.6.1 Profile of academic participants .............................................................................. 50 4.6.2 Questions ................................................................................................................ 50 4.7 Analysis of interview data ........................................................................................ 51 4.8 Master of Professional Accounting interviews ......................................................... 51 4.8.1 What are the learning outcomes for this course? .................................................... 51 4.8.2 What pre-existing skills and knowledge do you assume students will have on entering this course? How do you assess these? ............................................................. 52 4.8.3 In what ways is this course taught at masters level? In what ways does it differ to the undergraduate course? ................................................................................................ 53 4.8.4 AQF descriptors ...................................................................................................... 55 4.8.5 Are MPAs meeting the AQF? .................................................................................. 58 4.8.6 Results of bachelor of business/commerce (accounting) interviews ....................... 58 4.9 Juris doctor interviews ............................................................................................. 59 4.9.1 What are the learning outcomes for this course? .................................................... 59 4.9.2 What pre-existing skills and knowledge do you assume students will have on entering this course? How do you assess these? ............................................................. 59 4.9.3 In what ways is this course taught at masters level? In what ways does it differ to the undergraduate course? ................................................................................................ 59 4.9.4 AQF descriptors ...................................................................................................... 61 4.9.5 Are JDs meeting the AQF? ..................................................................................... 62 4.9.6 Results of LLB interviews ........................................................................................ 63 4.10 Interviews with selected unit leaders ....................................................................... 63 4.11 Interviews with employers and professional bodies ................................................ 64 4.11.1 Employers of accounting graduates ........................................................................ 64 4.11.2 Employers of law graduates .................................................................................... 65 4.12 Identification of course characteristics .................................................................... 65 4.12.1 Entry skills and prior knowledge ............................................................................. 68 4.12.2 Class format and delivery ........................................................................................ 71 4.12.3 Assessment ............................................................................................................ 72 4.12.4 Course materials .................................................................................................... 72 4.12.5 Depth and complexity ............................................................................................. 73 4.12.6 Meeting the revised AQF descriptor for masters (coursework) and masters (extended) .......................................................................................................................... 74 4.13 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 76

Chapter 5 Recommendations and Conclusions: .................................................................... 77

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 77 5.2 Defining a masters level course .............................................................................. 77 5.3 Academic standards................................................................................................ 78 5.3.1 Teaching standards................................................................................................. 79 5.3.2 Learning standards ................................................................................................. 88 5.4 Use of the academic standards model .................................................................... 91 5.5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 91

Chapter 6 References ......................................................................................................... 93 Appendix 1 Summary Comparison of Undergraduate TLOs ............................................ 104 Appendix 2 Interview Questions ...................................................................................... 108


Acknowledgements The graduate professional entry courses in accounting and law project team would like to acknowledge the contributions of staff at universities around Australia who participated in the project, in particular staff at RMIT University, Curtin University of Technology and Queensland University of Technology, who helped us trial and refine the design of the interview instruments. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the project reference group and evaluation team to the outcomes of this project: Reference Group n • Professor Duncan Bentley, Pro Vice-Chancellor

Curtin Business School, Curtin University of Technology • Richard Besley, Chief Executive Officer

Board of Examiners, Council of Legal Education • Associate Professor Eveline Fallshaw, Associate Pro Vice Chancellor (Learning & Teaching),

College of Business, RMIT University • Dr. Gordon Hughes, Partner

Blake Dawson • Mr Raj Malhotra, Managing Principal Solicitor

Administration Law Department, Victorian Government Solicitors Office • Professor Kim Watty, Chair in Accounting

Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin University • Ron Woolley, Accreditation Consultant

Professional Courses and Pathways, CPA Australia

Independent Evaluation Team n

• Jennifer Labourne, FCPA CA, Director, Finance and Business Colac Area Health

• Dr Karen Treloar, Director, Regulation and Quality Assurance TEQSA

And finally, our thanks to the Australian Learning and Teaching Council for funding this project and their support over the last two years.


The Project Team

RMIT University Professor Margaret Jackson - Project Leader Joann Cattlin Associate Professor Robert Inglis Linda Kam Lillian Lowe Mary Toohey Lauren Vasarelli Queensland University of Technology Professor Rosalind Mason - Local Project Leader Donna Cooper Associate Professor Sheryl Jackson Sarah Jones Curtin University of Technology Professor Glennda Scully - Local Project Leader Associate Professor Stacey Porter Carolyn Nothling


Executive Summary This project sets out to explore, first, whether a masters level degree that meets the requirements for entry into a profession applied different academic standards to those applied in an undergraduate degree that also meets the same professional entry requirements. We conducted our research in an environment subject to considerable change and shifting influence, especially with the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) review, the formation of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and the Australian Learning and Teaching Council’s (ALTC) threshold standards project. Whilst all of this activity around standards has helped highlight the need for our project, it has also made it challenging to work collaboratively with key stakeholders, in what was, and still is, regarded as a political environment.

Our research has provided us with a clear picture of the structure, learning objectives, teaching and assessment practices for professional bachelor and masters courses in accounting and law. The answer to the main research question is that while the academic standards for a masters professional entry course are different to the undergraduate degree in many instances, this is not the case with all courses. The interviews with academics showed that, in some cases, the academic standards for the Juris Doctor and the Master of Professional Accounting were the same as those of the Bachelor of Law and the accounting undergraduate degrees. In the minds of some staff, they were the same courses. In other cases, however, staff could demonstrate that they were teaching at postgraduate level and were able to articulate how they achieved this. In many cases, there are clear differences between the bachelor and masters courses leading to professional practice. About a third of the courses we examined were offered and taught at masters level. However, some courses have adopted the same academic standards as the undergraduate degree. There were also many differing views expressed by academics about whether or not they were really offering masters level courses. Our findings demonstrated a clear need for a guide as to what should be the academic standards of a masters course. The second main question that we set out to answer was, what should be the academic standards for a professional entry masters course? We interviewed academics about what they consider makes their course a masters or not. The themes that emerged from the interviews have been matched with the themes from the literature review, to identify some key characteristics of a masters course. These characteristics have then been developed further into academic standards. The characteristics of a coursework masters are: • prior learning, as well as life and work experiences of applicants are built into the course design

• academics engage with students as postgraduate learners

• curriculum is taught at a level that offers greater intellectual depth, currency and practical application, able to be differentiated from similar undergraduate content

• assessment is challenging and measures the required acquisition of skills and knowledge in an integrated context

• strong professional involvement and focus

Our academic standards model reflects the characteristics we have identified as defining a masters course and has also been informed by the revised AQF and the ALTC discipline threshold learning outcomes. The model comprises teaching standards covering entry skills, teaching postgraduate learners, level and depth of learning, assessment and professional focus together with learning standards addressing the AQF level 9 outcomes of knowledge, skills and application. While our academic standards model has been designed for professional entry masters courses, it should, with slight modification, be a useful guide for other coursework masters.


Organisations and Abbreviations AACSB Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business ABA American Bar Association ABDC Australian Business Deans Council ACARA Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority ACER Australian Council for Education Research AEI Australian Education International AFAANZ Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand AHEQAF Australian Higher Education Quality Assurance Framework ALTC Australian Learning and Teaching Council APLEC Australasian Professional Legal Education Council AQF Australian Qualifications Framework ATN Australian Technology Network of Universities AUQA Australian Universities Quality Agency AUTC Australian University Teaching Commission CALD Council of Australian Law Deans CEQ Course Experience Questionnaire CLA Collegiate Learning Assessment CPAA / CPA (Certified Practising Accountant) Australia CUT Curtin University of Technology DEEWR Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations DEST Department of Education, Science and Technology DETYA Department of Education, Employment and Youth Affairs DIISR Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research EQUIS European Quality Improvement System ERA Excellence in Research for Australia GMAT Graduate Management Admission Test GPA Grade Point Average ICAA Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia ICT Information and Communication Technology IELTS International English Language Testing System JD Juris Doctor LACC Law Admissions Consultative Committee LCA Law Council of Australia LIV Law Institute of Victoria LLB Bachelor of Laws LLM Master of Laws LSAT Law School Admission Test LTAS Learning and Teaching Academic Standards MAcc Master of Accounting MCEETYA Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs MCTEE Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment MODL Migrant Occupations in Demand List MPA Master of Professional Accounting NIA National Institute of Accountants NPHEAIP National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes NQF National Qualification Framework QUT Queensland University of Technology RMIT Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology TAFE Technical and Further Education TEQSA Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency TER Tertiary Entrance Rank TLO Threshold Learning Outcome UEQ University Engagement Questionnaire UTS University of Technology Sydney


Chapter 1 Overview of the Study 1.1 Introduction There are a growing number of graduate entry courses, offered at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, being introduced by Australian universities which are designed to allow graduates to enter a new profession, notably in accounting and law, but also in other disciplines such as architecture and physiotherapy. This project is concerned with courses offered by the accounting and law disciplines. There are 12 Juris Doctor (JD) courses offered in Australia, double the number accredited in 2006 (and more law schools are proposing to introduce one), and 27 Masters of Professional Accounting (MPA) courses, as well as numerous other accounting masters which can be used to obtain an accounting qualification, depending on the subjects selected.

To date, there has been limited work undertaken to understand the educational implications of these new courses and to understand, in particular, the academic standards for postgraduate professional entry courses as opposed to undergraduate courses also leading to professional entry. There is considerable uncertainty about whether the graduate entry professional masters are in fact undergraduate courses offered to graduates rather than masters level courses.

The objectives of this project are to explore whether a masters level degree that meets the requirements for entry into a profession applies different academic standards to those applied in an undergraduate degree that also meets the same professional entry requirements and to articulate what those different standards should be.

Clarification of the exact status and academic standards for these professional entry courses will assist potential students and universities as well as other disciplines that offer or are proposing to offer similar professional courses in understanding the nature of the courses. It will also provide valuable input into any subsequent review of the Australian Quality Framework (AQF) which was reviewed in 2011.

This proposal has been designed to address priority 1 of the priority projects program, namely, academic standards, assessment practices and reporting. The outcome expected of this priority is improvement in the higher education assessment practices and student learning outcomes for professional entry masters. This project focuses on the need to develop and describe a shared understanding of standards of graduate professional entry courses within the accounting and law disciplines.

1.2 Outcomes This project has:

• identified academic standards relating to learning outcomes to distinguish the two pathways to professional practice – undergraduate and postgraduate

• benchmarked these standards and used them to develop national academic standards for masters by coursework, focussing on professional entry masters. These standards are defined with flexibility to accommodate different roles and contexts in different institutions and different criteria for entry to a profession

• resulted in a shared standards model for use by law and accounting schools, which includes suggestions of relevant assessment tasks designed to measure masters level professional capabilities, learning outcomes and attributes

• provides clear standards to allow students and the professions to understand the


differences between the two pathways to professional practice, at both undergraduate and postgraduate level

• allows course coordinators to explain how the areas of knowledge and skills for the law and accounting professions are addressed in both types of qualification and how the two courses differ in respect of the learning outcomes to be achieved by graduates

• assisted the accounting bodies, legal accrediting bodies, and those institutions, like the College of Law, which offer statutory authorised legal professional training to law graduates seeking to enter legal practice, to understand the applicable academic standards

• assisted accrediting bodies e.g. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) in accrediting these courses

• assisted academics in disciplines other than accounting and law which are introducing or have already introduced graduate entry professional courses to identify and develop applicable academic standards for their courses

• provided a model that is of value to other academics that may be planning similar projects to understand standards on different levels of course or to understand how to build courses for students with different entry skills gained from prior educational and life experiences.

1.3 Research question and aims

1.3.1 Research question The objective of this project is to explore whether a masters level degree that meets the requirements for entry into a profession, such as accounting or law, applies the same academic standards to those applied in an undergraduate degree that also meets the same professional entry requirements and, if not, to then describe what those different standards are.

1.3.2 Aims The specific aims of this project were to:

• examine the stated outcomes of existing professional entry courses in accounting

and law, to better understand the academic standards appropriate for both undergraduate and postgraduate pathways

• examine how the capabilities and generic skills (and related assessment where applicable) in masters courses differed from that in undergraduate courses and whether these differences led to different academic standards and to measuring different student outcomes

• analyse whether there were differences in academic standards between undergraduate and professional entry courses

• seek to understand how these postgraduate courses differed in respect of academic standards from graduate entry undergraduate degrees, which allowed students to progress more quickly through the degree than a non-graduate but which combined school leavers and graduates in the same classes

• develop a transferable model of academic standards for professional entry courses for use in other disciplines.


1.3.3 Significance of the study To gain entry to both the accounting and legal professions, applicants must have an undergraduate degree or equivalent higher level qualification and then must undertake professional training qualifications and work experience.1 Since the late 1980s, graduates from non-accounting disciplines have been able to undertake postgraduate courses designed to allow them to enter the accounting profession. A similar pathway emerged for lawyers in the 1990s. Postgraduate professional entry courses in law are normally titled the Juris Doctor (JD)2 while in accounting they are usually titled the Master of Professional Accounting (MPA), although other titles are used. These masters level courses allow a degree holder to convert to a new profession on completion of the course. They are usually fee paying.

Most of the graduate entry courses in accounting allow students to complete a professional entry course in a shorter time than that required of students undertaking an undergraduate professional entry degree. For law students, the course structure must be three years of full-time study or the equivalent, whatever the level of the course, as this is set down by statute. Some undergraduate courses in law also offer graduate entry pathways.

The rationale behind graduate professional entry courses, is that students who complete such masters degrees are more motivated and focused with their studies and have a clear picture about their future profession (Larcombe, Nicholson & Malkin 2008; The University of Melbourne 2008). Also, in promotional material, a primary stated difference between graduate entry and undergraduate courses, is that the assessment of masters students is different to that of the undergraduate courses because the background and experience of students allows for more ‘advanced learning outcomes’ (The University of Melbourne 2008). These courses adopt the American approach to professional education in which students undertake a generalist college education after leaving secondary school and then enter a graduate school to study a professionally oriented course. The American Bar Association (ABA), which accredits all legal education courses in the United States of America, states that completion of an undergraduate degree and prior work experience, equips a law student with a set of core skills and values (ABA 2008). These are:

• analytic / problem solving skills

• critical reading

• writing skills

• oral communication / listening abilities

• general research skills

• task organization / management skills

• public service and promotion of justice (ABA 2008).

1 The accounting professional bodies, membership of which is voluntary, specify the entry requirements to the accounting profession while entry to the legal profession is laid down in relevant state or territory legislation, for instance, the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic). 2 In the US, entry to the legal profession is by the graduate Juris Doctor course. In 1906, the American Bar Association (ABA), which accredits all legal education courses, recommended the awarding of a JD for those who undertook a law professional degree after completing an undergraduate degree. It does not entitle the holder of a JD to be called doctor. It was not until 1964, however, that the ABA finally directed that the JD was the only nomenclature to be used for the law graduate entry course. See Joanna Lombard, ‘LL.B to J.D and the Professional Degree in Architecture’, Proceedings of the 85th ACSA Annual Meeting, Architecture: Materials and Imagined and Technology Conference, 1997: 585-591, p 1.


The ABA also states that some basic areas of knowledge are useful when seeking to become a law student. These areas include basic mathematical and financial skills, a basic understanding of human behaviour and social interaction, and some understanding of world events and international influences (ABA 2008). The ABA does not suggest that these skills and values can only be acquired through undergraduate studies but a prior degree is required for entry to the JD.

It should be noted that, in Australia, the decision about the level of a degree to be offered is that of the university and not the appropriate professional body. However, there is a national quality assurance framework with which Australian universities must conform. Two key components of this framework are the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes (National Protocols) and the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). The National Protocols seek to ensure that an approved Australian university will award higher education qualifications across a range of fields and will “set standards for those qualifications which are equivalent to Australian and international standards” (DEEWR 2007, clause 1.14). These standards are set out in the AQF (2011a) which provides guidelines about the requirements of various qualifications including a bachelor degree and masters degree. The National Protocols seek to ensure that an approved Australian university will award higher education qualifications across a range of fields and will “set standards for those qualifications which are equivalent to Australian and international standards”.3 These standards are set out in the AQF which provides guidelines about the requirements of various qualifications including a bachelor degree and masters degree.4 It describes a bachelor degree as providing “initial preparation for professional careers and postgraduate study”.5 The masters degree “provides mastery or high-order overview of a relevant field of study or area of professional practice”.6 When we commenced the project, the AQF (2007a) outcomes for the bachelor and masters degrees clearly indicated the differences by the use of phrases such as “acquisition of a systematic and coherent body of knowledge” compared to “advanced knowledge about a specialist body of … topics”, and “development of academic skills and attributes” compared to “demonstrate a high order of skill in analysis, critical evaluation and/or professional application”. The AQF (AQF Council 2011a) sets out characteristics of learning outcomes that a graduate will acquire after completing a bachelor and masters degree. For a bachelor degree, the characteristics of learning outcomes include:

• a broad and coherent body of knowledge, with depth in the underlying principles and concepts in one or more disciplines as a basis for independent lifelong learning

• cognitive skills to review critically, analyse, consolidate and synthesise knowledge

• cognitive and technical skills to demonstrate a broad understanding of knowledge with depth in some areas

• cognitive and creative skills to exercise critical thinking and judgement in identifying and solving problems

3 Protocol 1, clause 1.14, available at http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/policy_issues_reviews/key_issues/MCEETYAS/default.htm. 4 AQF Council. 2011. Australian Qualifications Framework Implementation Arrangements [Online]. Available:

http://www.aqf.edu.au/Portals/0/Documents/AQF%202011%20Implementation%20Arrangements.pdf [Accessed 25/7/2011 2011].

5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.


• communication skills to present a clear, coherent and independent exposition of knowledge and ideas

• demonstrate the application of knowledge and skills:

o with initiative and judgement in planning, problem solving and decision making in professional practice

o to adapt knowledge and skills in diverse contexts o with responsibility and accountability for own learning and professional

practice in collaboration with others within broad parameters. For the masters, the characteristics of learning outcomes are outlined in the following table.

AQF (2011) Qualification Type Learning Outcome Descriptors Masters (Coursework)

AQF (2011) Qualification Type Learning Outcome Descriptors Masters (Extended) 7

Purpose The master degree (coursework) qualifies individuals who apply an advanced body of knowledge in a range of contexts for professional practice or scholarship and as a pathway for further learning

Purpose The master degree (extended) qualifies individuals who apply an advanced body of knowledge in a range of contexts for professional practice and as a pathway for further learning

Knowledge

• a body of knowledge that includes the understanding of recent developments in a discipline and/or area of professional practice

• knowledge of research principles and methods applicable to a field of work and or learning

Knowledge

• a body of knowledge that includes the extended understanding of recent developments in a discipline and its professional practice

• knowledge of research principles and methods applicable to the discipline and its professional practice

Skills

• Cognitive skills to demonstrate mastery of the theoretical knowledge and to reflect critically on theory and professional practice or scholarship

• Cognitive, technical and creative skills to investigate, analyse and synthesise complex information, problems, concepts and theories and to apply established theories to different bodies of knowledge or practice

• Cognitive, technical and creative skills to generate and evaluate complex ideas and concepts at an abstract level

• Communication and technical research skills to justify and interpret theoretical propositions, methodologies, conclusions and professional decisions to specialist and non-specialist audiences

• Technical and communication skills to design, evaluate, implement, analyse and theorise about developments that contribute to professional practice or scholarship

Skills

• Cognitive skills to demonstrate mastery of the theoretical knowledge and to reflect critically on theory and professional practice

• Cognitive, technical and creative skills to investigate, analyse and synthesise complex information, problems, concepts and theories and to apply established theories to different bodies of knowledge or practice

• Cognitive, technical and creative skills to generate and evaluate complex ideas and concepts at an abstract level

• Communication and technical research skills to justify and interpret theoretical propositions, methodologies, conclusions and professional decisions to specialist and non-specialist audiences

• Technical and communication skills to design, evaluate, implement, analyse and theorise about developments that contribute to professional practice

Will demonstrate the application of knowledge and skills

• With creativity and initiative to new situations in professional practice and/or further learning

• With high level personal autonomy and accountability • To plan and execute a substantial research-based

project, capstone experience and/or piece of scholarship

Will demonstrate the application of knowledge and skills

• With creativity and initiative to new situations in professional practice and/or further learning

• With high level personal autonomy and accountability • To plan and execute a substantial research-based

project, capstone experience and/or professionally focused project

7 The masters degree (extended) was developed to acknowledge the longer duration of masters courses designed for entry to a profession.


Volume of learning Typically 1-2 years; in the same discipline, 1.5 years following level 7 qualification or 1 year following a level 8 qualification; in a different discipline 2 years following a level 7 qualification or 1.5 years following a level 8 qualification

Volume of learning Typically 3-4 years following completion of a minimum of 3 year level 7 qualification

Table 1 AQF (2011) learning outcome descriptors for masters (coursework and extended) Normally, students are not entitled to obtain exemptions for postgraduate level courses for similar courses completed at undergraduate level.8 In the case of professional entry courses such as the JD, this means that a student who has completed criminal law in an undergraduate law degree is generally not entitled to an exemption from the criminal law course in the JD, even though the two courses both cover the identical Priestley 11 areas of knowledge.9 This question of exemptions is a matter raised frequently by potential students who express concern that they are being asked to pay twice the fees needed to obtain their professional qualification.

This issue makes it very important to be able to differentiate between the skills and knowledge inherent in a subject, say, on management accounting or contract law, and the student outcomes anticipated of a student undertaking an undergraduate professional entry degree compared to a postgraduate professional entry degree in the same discipline. The student outcomes should be different, depending on the level of qualification.

The problem that arises from these graduate pathways, therefore, and which this project seeks to explore, is whether the JD or the MPA are really being taught at masters level or not, how this can be ascertained and what are the standards appropriate for both undergraduate and postgraduate pathways for graduate professional entry courses.

1.3.4 The approaches to graduate entry courses by the two professions Graduate professional entry courses in both accounting and law are relatively recent in Australia. The first accounting postgraduate professional entry level courses started in the 1980s (Mathews, Brown & Jackson 1990) while the first JD was only introduced in 1999 (Johnstone & Vigaendra 2003). While the main reason for the introduction of both has been demand by students, in the case of the accounting profession, a major impetus has been a strong demand for graduates by the profession (Birrell 2006b).

1.3.5 Professional training after graduation Both accounting and law students seeking to enter their respective professions, once they have finished their approved academic studies, are required to undertake further professional training. Lawyers must undertake the equivalent of one year, full-time experience as an articled clerk in a law firm, or complete an approved practical legal training course offered by a few approved universities and institutions such as the College of Law, although these requirements differ from state to state. Not all states offer articles of clerkship. From July 2008 in Victoria, a new ‘traineeship’ system has replaced the current articles system. Law graduates must complete a 12 month traineeship with a legal firm or office, working under the supervision of a practitioner (in effect, articles by another name) but at the same time, must complete training in the ‘Competency Standards for Entry Level Lawyers’ developed by the Law Admissions Consultative Committee (LACC) and the Australasian Professional Legal Education Council (APLEC) (LAV 2011). In particular, the professional training courses for lawyers are generally built “on the knowledge and understanding of the law, the legal system and of 8 This is the case with RMIT’s Juris Doctor and MPA. See also, Graduate Degrees in the Melbourne Model Discussion Paper. http://www.unimelb.edu.au/abp/pcpc/pdf/gdmelb.pdf, accessed 4 Feb 2008. 9 The Priestley 11 areas of knowledge cover the areas of: criminal law and procedure, torts, contracts, property law, equity and trusts, company law, federal and state constitutional law, administrative law, civil procedure, evidence, and professional responsibility.


legal practice which a graduate should have acquired by the end of an undergraduate law degree” (APLEC 2000) and do not make allowance for potential lawyers entering through other channels. Accountants must undertake further specified part time study, the structure of which will vary, depending on which professional accounting body they wish to join. These additional studies are focused on the attainment of specific professional skills and knowledge. They must also gain work experience.

1.3.6 Limitations of the study There were a few limitations encountered with this study. The following underlines the main issues faced.

• the advent of the AQF review, TEQSA and the ALTC discipline threshold standards project has meant that there was sensitivity around the project and a lack of willingness by some institutions to discuss professional entry courses

• differences in the way each university handles course development and in the use of terms such as graduate attributes, capabilities and learning outcomes

• understanding/identifying organisational structure and knowledge sources within each institution that could provide the depth of knowledge appropriate for interview

• a general lack of knowledge by academics of the AQF characteristics at the time the project commenced

• the project did not examine any masters courses offered by private providers.

1.3.7 Structure of the report This report has been written in chapters. Chapter 1 is an overview of the study, highlighting the research question, objectives and limitations of the study. Chapter 2 is a review of the research literature around masters courses, the Australian and international context concentrating on the Master of Professional Accounting and the Juris Doctor. Chapter 3 focuses on academic standards in the Australian higher education sector and the changing landscape over the past two years, in particular, the strengthening of the AQF, the development of masters standards, AUQA, the formation of TEQSA and the ALTC LTAS project. Chapter 4 describes the project methodology and management, with a focus on the interview process and data analysis. Chapter 5 presents the recommendations and conclusions as drawn from our investigation, including, identification of masters characteristics, primarily in relation to professional entry masters, the standards model, guidelines for teaching and learning standards, learning activities and suggested assessment for AQF learning outcomes.


Chapter 2 Literature Review – Masters Courses

2.1 Introduction To put the project in context we have reviewed the literature relating to professional masters coursework courses in Australia and specifically the development of the JD and the MPA. We have also broadly considered the development and growth of masters coursework courses in Australia and issues relating to professional accreditation. This project commenced at a time when the discussion of academic standards was gathering momentum with the announcement of the new regulatory body, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), a major review of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) and the commencement of work by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) on discipline learning and teaching academic standards. By the completion of this project there were significant shifts in all these areas that impacted on the issues under investigation. We have reviewed the developments in quality assurance processes that regulate course delivery and content, the discussions about academic standards and measurement of learning outcomes is covered in the next chapter. The significant changes in education and the economy in the last decade have placed demands on universities to meet the increasingly diverse needs of employers and students. Changes in government funding to universities since the late 1980s, and the necessity for institutions to attract fee paying students, has transformed universities into businesses and to a certain extent changed the focus of universities from research and knowledge production to become training grounds for professionals (Johnstone & Vignaendra 2003). It has been alleged that this has altered the nature of students’ relationship with the university to that of ‘consumer’ and altered the operations of courses and the way students are attracted and retained (McInnis & Marginson 1994, p. 21). The increase in student numbers, both domestic and overseas students, and the diversity of their entry skills and experience, has forced major changes in teaching practices. The influence of professional bodies accrediting courses has also altered the structure and content of many courses to reflect the requirements of the workplace for graduates with work related generic skills, as well as technical knowledge. The growth of guaranteed pathways between Technical and Further Education (TAFE) and universities, and the recent introduction of associate degrees offered through TAFE has added greater complexity. New private providers also challenge the monopoly of universities and raise questions regarding the quality of their courses.

2.2 Development of masters coursework degrees In order to understand the current academic standards for masters degrees, it is important to consider the context and the influences that have shaped the development of postgraduate coursework degrees. The huge growth in the numbers of students studying coursework masters in Australia, and the corresponding decline in those studying masters by research, highlights that it is the coursework courses that are now defining this qualification level (DEEWR 2008). The masters by research degree has steadily declined in completions each year, from 1775 in 1996 to 1392 in 2008 (DEEWR 2008). This continues the trend from the late 1980s noted by McInnis, James and Morris (1995), when enrolments in master coursework degrees grew by 150 per cent between 1988 and 1994, with masters coursework students making up over 70 per cent of all masters students in this period. The masters by coursework constitutes 40 per cent of all postgraduate course completions in 2008.10

10 This figure includes all levels of postgraduate courses.


These figures highlight the significance of this qualification, for universities, students and potential employers. Until the late 1980s, masters degrees focused on developing research skills and were a further specialisation in a subject area already studied at undergraduate level, and often a stepping stone towards a doctorate and an academic career. The academic standards across institutions were maintained largely through academic tradition, small student numbers, and similar approaches to research training. The changes in masters coursework degrees in the last 20 years reflect the wider changes in higher education. In this time universities have been moving away from the traditional role of training academics, towards meeting the needs of the workforce, in particular the specific needs of professional groups (McInnis, James & Morris 1995). As well, the huge increase in students from a variety of backgrounds, both domestic and overseas and the introduction of fee paying courses has changed student needs and expectations. Since the early 1980s, the Australian government funding to universities has declined, while student fees have increased. The significance of these changes in funding has meant that universities have had to find new sources of revenue in order to sustain their business. In 1989, the government allowed universities to begin charging fees for a number of postgraduate coursework qualifications aimed at upgrading skills of people already employed (McInnis, James & Morris 1995). Subsequent changes to regulations have meant that postgraduate courses have become a significant area of income for universities. The coursework masters met the needs for universities internationally to grow fee paying enrolments, while also addressing the needs of employers for highly skilled workers, and the ambitions of graduates seeking promotion into executive positions (McInnis, James & Morris 1995).

The masters degree by coursework has been an adaptable qualification changing to meet the needs of a range of stakeholders. The need for better qualified employees, with specific skills and knowledge, has been a major driver for university curriculum development in professional disciplines (Birrell et al. 2008). External accreditation is a key determinant of course contents and structures for a number of courses, and faculties work closely with relevant professional bodies to ensure their graduates meet the professional requirements for knowledge and skills. However, the growth and diversification of masters coursework qualifications has meant that, as a qualification, its standards, expectations and ‘brand’ has become confused (Forsyth et al. 2009). This diversity is due to a variety of reasons as follows:

The multiple forms of the degree are a response to a variety of professional and vocational purposes in addition to the traditional masters academic functions. The coursework masters brings together a student mix whose needs and expectations are frequently varied – many students are recent graduates, others are returning to study to build on extensive professional experience. A growing number of students are beginning studies in fields that are unrelated to their undergraduate specializations (McInnis, James & Morris 1995, p. x).

The growth in the number of coursework masters degrees has also been marked by the development of a variety of course structures and modes of delivery, as institutions have sought to meet the variety of needs of students (McInnis, James & Morris 1995). At masters level, students vary greatly in age and experience, and part time students usually combine study with other commitments and responsibilities. This has created a need for greater flexibility in delivery modes, such as online content, intensive courses and evening and weekend classes. Students at masters level are from a wide variety of educational, employment and cultural backgrounds, which translates into a diverse range of skills and knowledge on entry. The efforts to accommodate these diverse needs, particularly in relation to levels of English language, some believe have strongly influenced the way in which courses are delivered by reducing the level of teaching


(Freeman 2010; Birrell 2006a; Watty 2007; Matchett 2010a). Similarly, concerns have long been expressed regarding the ‘quality’ or level of ability of students admitted to coursework masters, given the financial incentive to universities to gain large enrolments and the impact that this has on standards (McInnis, James & Morris 1995; Freeman 2010). In addition to difficulties with English, it has been suggested that overseas students also struggle to adapt to the learning style expected at Australian universities, particularly within the timeframe of an 18 month MPA (Burch 2008). There has been little recent study of the developments in professional masters coursework courses, with only a small number of studies looking at aspects of standards in masters coursework degrees. A key study by McInnis, James and Morris in 1995 considered standards in ten masters coursework courses. Their project provides a snap shot of masters coursework courses just after a period of rapid growth and the findings not only reflected the early stages of the quality assurance measures but also foreshadowed the introduction of the AQF in 2000. However, it is interesting that the issues they raised are still current and central to this project and indicate that the intervening quality assurance measures have done little to address the issues around coursework masters degrees. The McInnis study provides a useful framework for determining the key characteristics of masters degrees and the “explicit and implicit measures” that can be used to measure quality. They find that while “the diversity of coursework degrees is a positive sign of the ability of universities to innovate and adapt, … there are problems of standards and meaningful nomenclature that need to be addressed” (McInnis, James & Morris 1995, p 23). In particular, these problems are the growth and diversity of the students, concerns about whether work is at an ‘advanced’ level and whether there is some consistency between institutions to ensure “system-wide equivalence” (McInnis et al. 1995, p70). They identify the main types of masters coursework degrees and have particular concerns for the ‘conversion’ courses that they identify as

modified professional specialisation courses which give students credentials to work in fields for which they have no undergraduate qualification... Such courses raise particular concerns about quality assurance since they most obviously challenge the meaning of ‘masters’ (McInnis, James & Morris 1995, p. 26).

It is clear, that with the absence of a research component and a prior degree in the same discipline from professional entry masters degrees, it is more difficult to define it as a higher level of achievement than a bachelor degree. McInnis et al. recommend that to achieve advanced levels of learning, these masters should take into account the level of maturity and prior educational and work experience of the students in their design and delivery (1995). In effect the key to achieving masters level learning outcomes is the building on the life experience, prior learning and skills of the students. The following are the report’s core assumptions about the quality assurance of coursework masters:

• that the coursework in masters courses ought to be conducted at a clearly advanced level in terms of the knowledge, skills and understanding required

• that the goals of coursework in masters courses should reflect the broader goals of university education, in particular, fostering intellectual values which transcend the boundaries of any particular branch of learning and any particular vocation, and achieving balance between the transmission of theoretical perspectives, practical skills, knowledge, and where relevant, professional values

• that the structure, process and delivery of education in these courses should be based on recognition of the special nature of postgraduate student learning

• that quality assurance mechanisms ought to provide for formal consultations with students and the relevant professional bodies

• that graduate students have needs and aspirations which can usefully be distinguished from those of undergraduate or postgraduate research students


• that the life and work experiences graduate students bring with them should be recognised and used to enrich learning environments (McInnis, James & Morris 1995, p. 82).

A study funded by Reid, Rennie and Shortland-Jones for the Australian University Teaching Committee (AUTC) considered best practice in professional masters coursework courses and invited universities to nominate courses as examples of best practice (2003). This study identified key indicators of quality, examining a number of courses and compiling a list of commonly agreed measures of quality. They concluded that “there is no single ‘gold standard’ by which teaching and learning can be simply measured” while also showing that “there is substantial agreement between staff and students across different institutions, course and fields of study about the principles of best practice in postgraduate coursework” (Reid, Rennie & Shortland-Jones 2003, p. 82). The study highlighted that there is some common understanding and agreement on what might constitute academic standards and the 25 principles of best practice provide useful reference points for our project. The principles address all areas of course delivery and structure and include:

• the course is regularly benchmarked against comparable courses

• curriculum content has enough intellectual depth, scholarly currency and wide practical applicability to justify its being offered at a postgraduate level

• on pedagogy the course strikes a suitable balance between vocational training and generalist education (e.g. by developing high order cognitive skills)

• teaching/learning interaction engages postgraduate students whose experience is valued

• regarding employment graduates from the course have a high employment rate and high workplace approval (Reid, Rennie & Shortland-Jones 2003, pp. 82-83)

2.3 Challenges to status of masters coursework degrees The status of masters coursework degrees was considered in the late 1990s and early 2000s when a number of appeals against decisions regarding eligibility for Austudy highlighted the difficulties caused by the inconsistencies in the qualification definitions used by different government departments and the universities. The Lander cases of Secretary of Department of Employment, Education and Training v Roderick Lander (1996) (AATA89) and Secretary of Department of Employment, Education and Training v Roderick Lander (1996) (FCA1088) consider in depth the definition of masters qualifications in relation to the Master of Arts (Psych) at The University of Sydney (1996). A Social Security Appeals Tribunal (30 March 1995) found in favour of the claimant, Roderick Lander, that the course he was studying was eligible for Austudy because despite being called a ‘masters’, it was equivalent to a graduate diploma level course. This was based on comparing the entry point, course structure and content with other similar courses. An Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) appeal by the Secretary against this decision upheld the Social Security Appeals Tribunal finding that the prerequisites, learning outcomes and subject content for the course matched the AQF requirements for a graduate diploma rather than a masters (1996). The department then appealed to the Federal Court which found that although evidence was provided that the course was similar in content and structure to a graduate diploma, it should be treated as a masters course because it was accredited and described as such by the university – the AAT had chosen to interpret ‘course of a type specified’ as the means to eligibility of courses based on their characteristics, rather than their title (1996). Michelle Woodward v. Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1998) concerned a chiropractic course that changed its title from graduate diploma to masters as a result of


an institutional amalgamation. The claimant argued that while her course was called a masters, it was in fact a masters qualifying course. Evidence in the case highlighted that the course was identical to a five year bachelor course at another university, that when the college amalgamated with the university the course had changed its name, but not content. Also this course did not qualify graduates for admission to a PhD course, unlike other masters courses. However the Tribunal found that it was bound by the Lander decision that “this Tribunal cannot go behind the accreditation which a university attributes to a course”(1998). The Tribunal conceded that the situation “may perhaps prove a disincentive to enrolment in this course for those students who must rely upon Austudy in order to undertake their studies” (1998). Cormack v. Secretary of Department of Family and Community Services (2000) concerned the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) at Bond University. The issue was that this course was classified as an undergraduate bachelor degree classified as Level B (for the purposes of Austudy), while similar LLBs and JD degrees at other universities were classified as Level A (postgraduate bachelor degrees). This case differs from the others discussed here, as this appellant considered the undergraduate course she was enrolled in was equivalent to other ‘graduate degrees’ and the JD. Evidence in the case detailed the inconsistencies between LLB courses at different universities, where the same materials were used, graduates and non-graduates studied the same material, attended the same classes and were assessed similarly. “The Tribunal makes the observation that if the level of content and form of assessment (including grading criteria) are the same for the Level A Accelerated Bachelor of Laws compared with the Level B LLB offered at QUT – as well as the Level A graduate law degree at The University of Sydney with the Level B LLB offered by The University of Sydney, then, a clear anomaly in Austudy eligibility exists.”…”clearly, the term ‘postgraduate bachelor’s degree’ needs to be defined in the Act for Austudy purposes” (2000). However the tribunal found that the Bond University LLB course was an undergraduate course and therefore a Level B qualification based on the fact that a degree was not required for entry to the course. The Federal Court and AAT affirmed this approach in 2003 and 2004 in three appeals against decisions by the Department of Family and Community Services concerning Austudy. The appeals concerned the eligibility of particular masters courses for payment of youth allowance and particularly what differentiated a masters course from an undergraduate or an integrated bachelor/masters course. Layt v Secretary of Department of Family and Community Services (2003) concerned the JD at The University of Queensland. The claimant asserted that the JD was a ‘graduate degree’ and therefore entitled to Austudy, as it was open to all graduates, apart from law graduates (2003) . The decision considers the AQF and Juris Doctor course structure in detail and whether the JD is in fact “a masters or a doctoral degree course” or as Layt argued, it is a “graduate degree offered at undergraduate level” (2003). Evidence from The University of Queensland indicated that the academic board intended that the JD course be taught separately from the undergraduate course, but in practice some JD students did attend undergraduate classes. Also some evidence from teaching staff indicated that they did not consider it to be a masters level course. This case highlighted the confusion caused by the JD title itself, and the use of the “masters” title for a course that did not build on prior study in the same field. Hill v Secretary Department of Family and Community Services (2003) questioned whether the Master of Science (Speech Pathology) at Curtin University was a true masters degree, or an integrated undergraduate/postgraduate course leading to a masters degree. The key point was that the course was taught not at a masters level, but “in the same classes by the same lecturers, and having the same assessments” as the undergraduate course (2003). The Tribunal found that while the content of the course did indeed appear to be similar to the undergraduate degree, it was not their place to “look behind the level at which the institution accredited the degree” (2003). Cordaro v Secretary of Department of Family and Community Services (2004) was concerned with the course structure of Master of Law and Legal Practice at the University of Technology Sydney. Similar to the Hill case, the issue was whether it was an integrated undergraduate/postgraduate


course. The course structure involved teaching undergraduates and graduates in the same classes and at the same level, with the only distinction between them being the masters level elective subjects. The Tribunal found that it was indeed an integrated course because the early subjects parallel the graduate diploma course also offered and “there is a clear demarcation between the graduate diploma component and the masters component of the integrated course” (2004). The cases highlight the difficulties caused by inconsistencies in the definitions used by different government departments for Australian tertiary qualifications. The Lander, Cormack and Layt cases, in particular, highlighted the similarities between undergraduate and masters’ courses and seriously questioned the status of these courses when it was evident that course content, delivery and assessment was the same. The Lander case set the precedent for all later cases in upholding the universities’ authority in accrediting their own courses. However, in each case, the examination of the individual course outlines, evidence from university staff and comparison of the AQF and Austudy guidelines revealed inconsistencies in definitions of graduate and masters degrees. The Bradley review recommended a change in policy for student assistance, that made all masters coursework degrees eligible for benefits, in recognition of the growing number of coursework masters and the problems of affordability (2008). The reform was also in direct response to the evidence that universities were using the title of masters for a variety of courses, as noted in the Bills Digest announcing the changes to legislation in 2007:

There is basically no fetter on an educational institution as to what it chooses to call a course. Generally masters courses describe postgraduate study but in some cases the masters component of a course could be a later part of a four year undergraduate degree course (Parliament of Australia 2007, p. 3).

In recent times, the status of master degree titles has been questioned in relation to developments in graduate entry degrees in the health sciences. There is a move towards degrees with the title ‘Doctor of’ that are masters level courses. This has raised concerns amongst peak professional and student groups that such a trend will have significant unintended consequences. (Roberts-Thomson,Kirchner & Wong, 2010, p. 660). For the students, it is important that they are receiving the quality and level of education they are paying for at masters level (Ross 2011) and that it provides access to the career they intended. Entry to the profession is cheaper if gained through an undergraduate qualification, with students pursuing masters degrees often paying full fees between $60,000 - $100,000 (for MPAs and JDs). There is also the potential for confusion with and devaluation of the existing doctorate degrees titled ‘Doctor of’, the reduced access for students who cannot afford such fees, and negative impact on the employment choices of graduates who enter the workforce with higher levels of debt (Harrison 2010; Stark 2011; Mitchell 2011; Cresswell 2011). It is also a concern of some that this diversity in degree nomenclature will contradict the moves by the Australian government towards comparability with the Bologna process and place Australia out of step with medical degrees in Europe and the US (Roberts-Thomson, Kirchner & Wong 2010, p. 660).

2.4 Masters degrees internationally Internationally, the masters degree is seen as a ‘versatile’ qualification that exists in a variety of forms, duration and titles that are particular to individual countries and are difficult to compare across borders (Davies 2009). While the adaptability of the qualification is positive in terms of meeting workforce demands and the needs of students, some are critical of innovation which they see as devaluing of the qualification. Blackmur commented in his critique of national qualification frameworks that:

Universities, internationally, have been responsible, over the last 30 years or so, for diluting the once unique meanings of degree nomenclature such as ‘master’ and ‘doctor’ beyond the point of no return. As descriptors they are basically valueless to labour markets because the value of classifying adjectives such as ‘bachelor’ and ‘master’ depends critically on their being ungradeable. Innovation in qualifications design, without


commensurate variation in qualifications nomenclature has, however, effectively rendered this property moribund (Blackmur 2004, p. 280).

In the USA until the 1980s, the masters degree was seen as a stepping stone on the path to a PhD, and was not respected as a qualification in its own right (Conrad, Duren & Haworth 1998). Since this time, there has been considerable growth in the number of masters degrees in response to the economy’s demand for highly trained professionals. The growth in the number of masters courses, has in turn, had a significant impact on the economic growth of the university which will continue as professions increasingly require masters degrees as the entry point to their ranks (Glazer-Raymo 2004). Graduate education is an important factor in maintaining a highly skilled and adaptable workforce in the USA and attracting high quality overseas students is an important part of this, however, “the dominant position of U.S. graduate education is now threatened as the rest of the world rapidly catches up” (Wendler et al. 2010, p. 2). In the UK, the title of masters is applied to a variety of qualifications that are undergraduate, postgraduate and honorary, although all are generally one year long. At the postgraduate level, they are classified into three types, research, specialised/advanced and professional/practice (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2010). The qualifications framework defines masters degrees at a level 7 (with bachelor degrees at 6 and doctorates at 8) and the descriptor emphasises ‘originality’, with ‘comprehensive’ understanding of issues at the “forefront of an academic and professional discipline” (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2008, p. 20-21). Masters degrees are differentiated from other shorter qualifications at this level, such as postgraduate diplomas and certificates, by “increased intensity, complexity and density of study” (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2008, p. 22). However, the Masters Degree Characteristics (2010) states that they can be delivered as a progression from postgraduate certificate or diploma, integrated in to a bachelor honours degree or as part of a doctoral degree (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2010). This variety is seen as confusing by many (Olcott 2010). The disparity between the length of UK and European masters degrees has caused some concern during the Bologna process,11 with the UK defending their shorter degrees by stressing the higher level of intensity of these degrees and the importance of the learning outcomes (Olcott 2010). In many European countries, masters degrees did not exist until recently, as bachelor courses were up to five years and led into advanced study or to the workforce (Shenton & Houdayer 2007). The Bologna Process has attempted to address the diversity of masters degrees that did exist and found that there are significant challenges due to the variety of models. The Bologna model for a masters degree has been defined as usually two years following a prior degree of three years, (Australian Education International 2011). It has been defined by the following characteristics:

• normally carrying ECTS of 90-120,12 of which at least 60 should be at masters level

• typical duration of one to two full time equivalent years

• disciplinary content consistent with generic level descriptors

• curriculum design and pedagogy defined by learning outcomes

• a recognised point of entry to the European labour market (Davies 2009) 11 The Bologna Process began in 1999 as an agreement between 45 European countries to create a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) which would mean that degrees from different countries would be comparable and allow movement of students and staff between countries and institutions. It has involved the development of consistent degree structures, credit transfer systems and alignment of national quality assurance processes covering Bachelor (Cycle 1), masters (Cycle 2) and doctorate degrees (Cycle 3) 12 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTAS) which is a system that measures course workload for the purpose of transferring between courses as well as accumulation. It is used for many European qualifications, but not all. The value is defined as: 60 credits represents 1 year of full-time study, normally 1500-1800 hours per year (so 1 credit = 25-30 working hours). Australian Education International. 2011, Courses and qualifications in higher education, Bologna Process [Online]. Australian Government, Accessed http://www.aei.gov.au/AEI/CEP/BolognaProcess/EducationSystem/HigherEd/CoursesandQuals/default.htm 7/6/2011.


Masters leading to professional qualifications, such as medicine, are not covered by this definition, as they are often longer and vary in structure between countries and are governed by European Union directives which do not currently align with Bologna (Rauhvargers 2011). The European masters is still not an easily transferable qualification, remaining “clouded by titles and nomenclature which, although usually clear at national level, lose clarity when viewed across external borders” (Davies 2009, p. 7).

2.5 Professional entry courses in accounting and law In Australia, the Juris Doctor (JD) and Master of Professional Accounting (MPA) illustrate the diversity that is possible in masters qualifications. The JD and MPA have both been developed to meet the specific requirements for professional recognition, while their structure and delivery is tailored to appeal to particular groups of students. While both are accredited (with the exception of one JD which is accredited as a bachelor degree) by their universities as masters level qualifications, they display the extent of variation that is possible in this qualification level. While most JDs are three years long, MPAs are usually 18 months and can be shorter, and while all JDs require an undergraduate degree for entry, some MPAs may not require a degree at all, although other requirements such as work experience apply. On the criteria of length and entry requirements alone, it is evident that very different outcomes are possible and are likely at this level. The question in this study is whether the course structure and content of these professional degrees has varied from the requirements of a masters degree to the point where they cannot be considered as such. Where the content and method of teaching bears so much similarity to the undergraduate equivalent, then the key point of difference becomes the prior knowledge and skills that graduates bring to a masters. It is useful at this point to consider the background to the development of the MPA and JD and the social and economic issues that have influenced their current forms.

2.6 Master of Professional Accounting There are currently 27 MPAs in Australian universities. The first accounting postgraduate professional entry level (conversion) courses started in the 1980s, with 10 institutions offering these courses for at least one year between 1987-1989 and growth of around 20 per cent in part time student numbers from year to year (Mathews, Brown & Jackson 1990). The development of conversion courses followed the British model of training non-accounting graduates, with the first MPA offered at Monash University in 1987 and at University of Technology Sydney (UTS) around the same time and was closely devised with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (ICAA). Initially the course at UTS was a non-award course that catered to students with a prior degree in a business field. The success of the course and recognition by the CPAA, encouraged other universities to offer conversion courses and most were offered as masters or graduate diplomas (D.Fraser 2011, pers. comm., 13/3/2011). The conversion courses were characterised as “the first manifestation of vocationalisation of the curriculum” in accounting with their focus on teaching technical skills, while the generic skills were addressed through the graduates’ previous degree (Evans 2010, p. 86). While the conversion courses were still developing, the Mathews report found that the “conversion courses have helped to bring diversity to the membership of the profession, by attracting into it people with qualifications in disciplines such as engineering, computing and education”(1990, p. 93), but it had “reservations about the narrowness and ‘pressure cooker’ nature of some of the courses which have been developed” (1990, p. 94). The panel recommended that if undergraduate courses were reviewed to develop a fourth year or one year diploma or greater access to single subjects, then the conversion courses would be phased out (Mathews, Brown & Jackson 1990). There are tensions around the influence of professional accreditation of the accounting courses, they


focus heavily on delivering the content required by the professional bodies which have become de-facto learning outcomes for most courses. The external accreditation requirements reflect the professional knowledge and skills required of the workforce, and broadly, to match the desired learning outcomes for the universities. The short time frame of MPAs means that there is a limited amount of time to develop the generic skills of students to an advanced level. Concerns have been frequently expressed by employers that accounting graduates do not have the level of communication skills they require (Hancock et al. 2009; Birrell 2006a). While this concern relates predominantly to the challenges of international students in developing their English to professional levels, it is a charge also levelled at domestic students who lack appropriate professional behaviour as well as writing and presentation skills (Poullaos & Evans 2008). The impact of large numbers of international students on the academic standards of accounting courses has been of concern to many, with English language competence being the key factor (Birrell 2006; Watty 2007; Cable, Dale & Day 2007). Overseas students dominate many MPA courses and some claim that the impact of this creates challenges for teaching staff and results in lower standards in order to mitigate poor English, as well as to sustain enrolments (Freeman 2010; Cable, Dale & Day 2007; Matchett 2010b). The influx of international students to MPA courses has largely been driven by the intersection of immigration policies and the need of universities to generate student income (Birrell 2006a; Birrell 2006b). The availability of onshore student visas has driven the huge increases in international student enrolments and, combined with the inclusion of accounting on the Migrant Occupations in Demand List (MODL) since 2004, has led to the growth of students in this discipline (Jackling 2011). While Australian universities have built up a solid business in attracting overseas students over the last 20 years, there has been some discomfort in acknowledging the motivation of students is related to permanent residency, rather than purely the quality of the courses (Ross 2010; Davies 2010). The numbers of overseas students completing their masters coursework in all disciplines rose from 3548 in 1996 to 35603 in 2009. Overseas students made up almost 60 per cent of completions of all masters coursework degrees in all disciplines in 2009 (DEEWR 2008; DEEWR 2009c). A recent small study of MPA students at a regional university challenged the belief that these students were primarily motivated by permanent residency, highlighting the importance of English ability and querying the entry standards of these courses (Chan et al. 2011).The effect of poor English on academic standards can also mean that course content is reduced in complexity with teaching focused on using textbook and exam based assessment (Davies 2010). Teaching of culturally diverse classes is more challenging and some academics find it difficult to teach overseas students “ill prepared for the student-centred learning” and the need to adapt courses to address poor English skills requires investment of time and money by universities (Burch 2008, p. 1). Anecdotally, many have questioned how students with poor English are able to complete their coursework (Birrell 2006a), how academics adapt their teaching to account for this and whether soft marking is endemic to these courses (Rowbotham & Matchett 2011). Without a suitable level of English, international students are unable to develop the academic, professional or personal skills required at this level of study (Jackson et al. 2006) or gain employment (Birrell 2006a). However, these concerns cannot be challenged when there is no real evidence of quality or lack of quality (Freeman 2010). A study by Jackson et.al (2006) found that “it is the English competency of students undertaking accounting assessment that has the most impact on student learning” and that early recognition of problems for students, and the resources to assist them is vital to their success (Jackson et al. 2006, p.6). Some universities are attempting to address this issue by providing assistance with English and professional communication, but the support can vary depending on the resources available at each university and there remains a perception that the courses are not being taught at a ‘masters’ level (Cable et al, 2007). The professional bodies in accounting have also taken some steps to address this issue by providing training to new graduates and working with universities through the accreditation process. As a result of poor English and lack of professional communication skills, it appears that many overseas students find it difficult to gain positions at the end of their course (Birrell et al. 2008). While


the government sought to address the shortage of accountants by allowing permanent residency, and universities have enjoyed a boom in student numbers as a result, this has contributed in part to a perceived drop in university standards and graduating students not meeting the requirements of employers. The entry requirements for MPAs varies widely, with the level of English required from the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) varying from 6 to 7. Some require a degree with a particular grade point average, while others do not require a degree at all, instead adding an additional 6 months to the course. Birrell commented that there is a great difference between IELTS levels and that level 6 English is not sufficient for professi