[Nic blogs at The 52nd State]
When ECU Vice-Chancellor Millicent Poole, in June this year, made the ambitious suggestion of combing with Curtin and Murdoch to form one “mega-uni”, Murdoch and Curtin brass went public with their existing two-way merger discussions. This announcement caught just about everybody on the hop, particularly the 50,000 students studying at the two universities. These students, along with their elected guild representatives, scrambled to make sense of what may have been a huge change in their education — and unlikely a good one. Fortunately it was abandoned in early November, as the benefits could not justify the costs.
This strategy is right out of the gospel of Dawkins, Education Minister for the Hawke government, who in the late-1980s declared that there was only one model for universities — large, comprehensive and research focused — and that all technical colleges and any institution with under 2000 students would have to combine, either with themselves or with an existing university, and would all be funded at the same rate. As a result, 63 separate institutions became 36 universities. The philosophy was that universities produced a standard “product”, so achieving economies of scale and driving down the cost per student was paramount — more so than quality.
It was an era in which, as stated by CIS research fellow Andrew Norton, “diversity counted for little and competition for nothing.” In the same way, diversity would be greatly damaged by a Curtin-Murdoch merger. Diversity of teaching, course and campus life is the only thing preventing universities from becoming solely generic degree factories, pumping students off a production line into the workforce. Students need a wide range of choices to get the most out of their education; a merger reduces choice, especially in a small place like Perth. Job losses for staff, numerous course closures, syllabus shakeups and increased bureaucracy would also have been inevitable.
But it is unlikely these concerns weighed very heavily with university powerbrokers.
If you’ve taken the time to look at either of the merger feasibility websites, you should note it reads like a sales pitch, with vague, wishy-washy answers to important questions. It was a purely financial decision and was rejected on financial grounds.
That this seemed like a good idea is due to the government funding situation. Since the Howard government rose to power in 1996 it has stripped over $5 billion from higher education funding, starting with a 22% drop from 1996 to 2000, and a 6% drop in funding per student. In 1981 government funding made up 90% of university income; today it’s less than 40%. Not all of the blame can be placed on the Howard government, however. In 1995, the Keating government introduced a flat level of indexation, the amount university funding increases due to inflation, at 2% per annum. However wage costs alone are rising at a much faster rate, leaving universities with ever-increasing shortfalls — Murdoch loses $2-4 million each year and ten of Australia’s 38 universities made losses in 2003. With the government continuing to forsake universities in the budget, financial pressure on universities will increase.
To stay afloat, universities have resorted to two alternate methods of revenue generation: cost cutting and aggressive recruiting of full-fee paying international students. Excessive cost cutting is already rampant in universities such as Curtin, especially in it’s business school — uncovered by Grok in November last year in a letter from Curtin Business School student “Erik.” The letter described the conditions students of the department study under, including excessive numbers of group projects, student presented tutorials and student self-evaluation, and mid semester exams are even held in such crammed conditions that some students are forced to use overhead projectors as desks. The exams themselves aren’t up to scratch either, with some “consisting entirely of true-or-false and multiple choice questions taken straight from the publisher’s website.” These measures are designed to decrease staff workload, presumably so a smaller number of lower-paid staff can make do — CBS makes do with 214 staff members for 14058 students, that’s over 65 students for each staff member. This is not an isolated problem, with student to staff ratios nation-wide increasing from 12:1 in 1985 to 16:1 in 1996 and to 21:1 by 2003, with some universities reporting up to 35:1. Between 1996 and 1998 staff numbers were slashed by 3000. Some tutorials have up to 50 students. Such cost cutting can only go on for so long before more drastic measures are required.
International students pull in $7.5 billion in revenue each year and are the lifeblood of Australian universities now that government funding has retreated. Curtin University boasts that over half its revenue is generated by international students, and full-fee paying students account for 40% of Central Queensland University’s. So reliant are universities on this river of cash that they are prepared to go to great lengths to recruit and keep students, especially those outside the Group of Eight, like Curtin and Murdoch. Strategies range from setting up overseas campuses to even offering students visas and points towards permanent residencies — which Brendan Nelson denies they have the authority to do.
To continue receiving funds, universities must ensure they continue to study, which means they have to pass. As many of these students have neither the pre-requisites for university entrance, nor an adequate grasp of the English language, universities such as Curtin rush students through an eight-month crash-course, aimed to teach them English and cover the first year of their course, and then parachute them into the second year of a course of their choice. From all accounts, including that of “Erik”, these are woefully inadequate, unleashing a mass of poorly prepared students. The catch is that failing these students results in a significant loss of revenue, so steps are taken to ensure they pass.
Standards are lowered, dumbing-down the course to a level where less capable students are able to pass, and group projects form a significant proportion of the marks for a given unit, allowing weaker students to ride on the backs of the more capable ones. Some students are even passed without fulfilling the course requirements, the highest-profile case being at Newcastle University in 2003. Professor Ian Firns found 15 essays with entire sections lifted directly from the internet. When he failed them outright, the university remarked the essays and passed the students. Dozens of academics have complained of similar occurrences. But reports such as these make it to overseas press and could hurt student numbers, so staff who speak out risk their jobs, and students like “Erik” face undesirable ramifications. But the situation is not sustainable, with countries like China gearing up to enter the market in force with super universities like Oriental University City. The damage to Australian universities from the loss of international student revenue would be “near catastrophic”, according to ANU Vice-Chancellor Ian Chubb.
Universities are acting like businesses, rather than halls of knowledge, and in doing so they play right into the Howard government’s hands. The Howard government has been relentlessly pursuing a free-market ideology, where every institution is converted into a business competing in a marketplace with little or no government support except where convenient, like forcing universities to push their stuff on to individual contracts that weaken academic unions, or forgo a 5-7.5% funding increase. Upcoming Industrial Relations reforms, changes to the welfare system and the sale of Telstra are all part of this master plan. Brendan Nelson’s new Research Quality Framework legislation results in what is, in the words of Dr Simon Cooper, “educational Darwinism”, with universities competing against each other for research funding, with a preference for “applied research”, where knowledge must sell. This leaves smaller players like Curtin and Murdoch in danger of having their research programs lose their funding unless they can combine their resources. Nelson is unapologetic, hinting that some universities may have to go because his policy is all about picking winners.
What’s more, the preference for profitable research means arts and humanities are going to find it hard to find funding. Already at Curtin, Performing Arts and numerous other courses are under threat because they don’t make a profit. As Curtin Humanities rep, Rebecca Higgie, said in August “If you think the university is going to spare your course because it has ‘education value,’ then you’re living in a land of make-believe.” But Nelson’s agenda cares very little. To him universities are merely responding to a market demand.
The endgame, as much as Nelson denies it, is for an American-style system where all students pay full fees. “The only solution that’s now posed by the policy environment is to move to a more universal full fee system, and I think that’s the likely end of this particular reform road that we’re now on,” says CQU’s Professor Simon Marginson. The center cannot hold. Either the government must restore university funding, against its ideology, or cut funding entirely. Our degrees are already the most expensive since World War II, and with another fee rise only delayed in Curtin by Guild lobbying, the future is not bright for the so-called clever country.
Forget VSU, this is the greatest threat facing Australian students.
“The endgame, as much as Nelson denies it, is for an American-style system where all students pay full fees.” Do they ? I thought that American universities had lots of corporate and individual benefactors who created a lot of scholarships. We just don’t seem to have ever had that culture here.
In the 80’s a friend of mine got a scholarship to do a Ph.D at the University of Texas. There was some arrangement whereby the uni got a fixed % of the state’s oil revenue - loads of money ! They had a dozen or so Nobel Prize winners on staff - they could just buy them in. How many billions of $$ of LNG etc has has WA just sold ? how much of it will go to Curtin or Murdoch ?
Nic, I am dissappointed in you. You faile dto mention how the HECS system is such burden on our young people leavingthem saddled with massive debts that stop them buying homes - NOT!!
Russell - most of the LNG is offshore and not treated as WA’s for Royalty purposes. Are you suggesting achange in those laws? And you want to be careful about allowing market forces in the hiring (and firing???) of employees because the Unions will be after you. They are up in arms about allowing AWAs for Uni staff at the moment.
Anybody would think I’m becoming a lefty with all the typos in that last post.
Nic
Interesting piece.
A few quibbles:
1. Most of the Universities already take a fairly uniform approach to teaching and learning - and are encouraged in doing so by the current policy settings and by competition through marketing and prestige/status rather than differentiation. For instance, there is probably no need for almost every university to have a Law School. This is a legacy of the Dawkins era and has not been addressed by Nelson, despite his rhetoric. Therefore further amalgamations (which I would nevertheless oppose) might not decrease diversity materially.
2. The research funding model does not necessarily encourage applied research at the expense of pure research - that’s more the incentive for universities to attract industry partners for research. There’s not a massive amount of skewing away from humanities and social science research in the current ARC system.
3. Multi-choice tests drawn from publishers’ websites can be pedagogically useful - particularly in large introductory courses where attention to the text is necessary and equity is a big consideration in assessing a large number of students as well as the cost of marking assessment. Similarly, there are valuable alternatives to small tutorial groups - quality of teaching and curriculum design is often more important than the manner of teaching.
4. The biggest single contributor to stretched resources in Universities is the abolition of salary indexation (originally in part a decision of the Labor government in 1995 but compounded by Vantsone in 1996).
5. Having just taught a cohort of overseas students in a large Business course, I share concerns about the adequacy of their preparation. However, I haven’t perceived in our Department any lowering of standards, though I am aware of it in other Departments. There may be some over-generalisation there.
There’s also a big differential of standards across different universities (and sometimes campuses) among Australian students - which is in large part a function of the massification of higher education.
Nevertheless, I share the general concerns as articulated in your article - but I think you’ve overplaid some of the discrete factors.
Razor - it just seems strange that you can have an economic boom with lots more money gushing through the economy, yet none of it seems to get into the higher education system. There must be better ways of working out a formula for funding universities.
Nic, this isn’t always true. For example there are, or were, in Brisbane three different but related courses in the area of food technology offered by three different universities in SE Qld. Each course is quite small. There would be clear advantages in offering one course, properly resourced, with a greater range of internal options, thus enabling the employment of more specialised staff.
Such solutions are too rational for our system. But they tend to happen automatically in larger state systems in the US which compete in size with our entire country.
But an interesting post and I share with your main comncerns.
Russel: There are a very small number of scholarships to go around considering the student population and a very large number of prospective students do miss out on a place because they cant afford it, or their parents have to start saving from infanthood.
Mark:
1. Perth is perhaps a more special situation. It has 4 public universities, all of which fulfil slightly different roles in the courses they offer. UWA is more the hard sciences, law and literature, Curtin is Business, IT and soft humanities, ECU covers education and has a much lower entrace requirement, not sure exactly what Murdoch’s niche is but it has one. If you combine them, you lose this.
Perhaps more importantly, the 4 are very different culturally and demographically.
2. That point is mostly derived from the 4Q program, which could I suppose have been a bit misleading in some places. Are you talking about the current or new ARC system that Nelson is bringing in (or has just brought in?)?
3. Erik was fairly adamant these test were a bad idea, and that many students were getting 100% regularly without doing any work. If universities could afford to hire more staff, the marking load would be lower. Surely at least comprehension that isnt that ridiculously easy is a better option? Also I think small tutorials are better for students in almost every possible way, but thats just a personal opinion based on my own and people I know’s experience.
4. I mentioned that didnt I?
5. Again, 4Q may have been unbalanced. Theres definately been a standards drop here recently, though.
Even if the extent of the problem has been exaggerated, it is indeed a very serious problem that must be addressed.
Brian: I agree, but wouldnt that be the exception rather than the rule? I cant see too many of those situations occuring and Im not aware of any in Perth.
I should also note, for readers’ information, that this was written for and published in a university publication and hence speaks with that target audience in mind and contains no hyperlinks.
I do have the links lying around if anyone wants them - the magazine asked I compile them so they could check my stats.
Nic - I graduated from both Curtin and Murdoch and I don’t mind the idea of them merging. Neither has a good library - which is the heart of a university - but there would be a lot of duplication. Save on the duplication and you might be able to have 1 good library …
Applying an “American System” here would result in Universities having a *lot* more money per EFTSU and would put a smaller financial burden on students.
Harvard ( a very expensive elite university) has undergrad tution fees of about $28000 per year (with total fees including room and board of about $41000), but also provides over $80 million in financial aid for it’s 6600 undergrads (on top of the State and Federal Govt aid that’s also available). Average Harvard aid per undergrad is about $30000.
Conversely, the University of Texas (a large State Government System comprising nine distinct universities and six hospitals) charges tuition of about $6000 per year and there’s $3 billion dollars of financial aid available to residents of Texas.
Full-fee undergrad positions in Australia are upwards of $15 000 per year for tuition alone. I wouldn’t be surprised if Australian students have the largest education-related debts anywhere in the world.
(FWIW the UTexas System dervives a lot of money from a $13billion trust used solely to support UTexas and Texas A&M. I can’t conceive of an Australian Government leaving that much money around for Universities, or for anyone else)
My total undergrad HECS debt for 1 year was $5k… A cheap state university in US is at least twice that. I paid $0 up front, they pay it all. HECS is a good system for that reason - it allows anyone in regardless of their economic position. Texas is also an outlier, most states dont have that kind of future fund avaliable.
Jesus Christ Nic, don’t go around spreading the word that HECS is a good system! Get with the program!
Next you will be pointing out that having a HECS debt in no way limits your borrowing ability to buy a house or car (in fact it probably increases your borrowing power). Or, that there is no compulsion, if you don’t ever earn enough in Australia, to pay off the debt, even in death.
Sheeez . . .
Heh. HECS is a good system. Fully taxpayer-funded higher education is simply not viable for any government at the present state of the nation. However the government should contribute enough so that all prospective students have the opportunity to get a university education, regardless of their financial status. HECS is a happy medium and free education was one of the many Whitlam blunders.
Nic, you haven’t paid anything upfront because the government gave you a loan to cover your tuition fees which they paid directly to the University on your behalf. It works the same way in America, except the loan goes to the Student who pays the University. I’m having trouble seeing the distinction.
There is a big difference in the mechanics of how the loan is repaid and yes, HECS is a superior system, particularly because repayments are contingent on income which is not the case in the US, but we weren’t talking about that. This is the real disincentive for poorer people - the threat of having to make significant repayments as soon as you graduate.
Anyway, my point (if you can call it that) is that the “American System” gets a bad reputation because people tend to hear about the small, private, elite and very expensive institutions and think that’s the whole story. Most students can be very heavily subsidised by the State and Federal Governments and the institutions - far more than they are in Australia. State University tutition fees may be more than in Australia but you haven’t considered the non-loan financial aid that’s available. If my fees are $10000 per year and I can get $8000 worth of grants, I’m better off than if my fees are $5000 completely covered by a loan.
Nic - the first time I earned a decent salary (54k), I was horrified to find that $90 a fortnight was going in HECS. If you have a look at the HECS repayment scales, the killer is that unlike income tax, there’s no threshold or effective progressivity - so that if you earn above $67200 you pay 8.5% of your entire pre-tax income in HECS. Or 4% at $36185. Scales are here. Believe me, when you get a full time job, you’ll notice it.
Let’s say you get a job paying 40k a year. After tax, if you had no HECS debt, your fortnightly pay would be $1210. With a HECS debt, it’s $1140. It gets worse as your pay goes up.
Horrified, Howard Lied, People Died, Mark was Horifiiiied by a $45 per week HECS repayment.
My heart weeps for you.
Most people spend more on mobile phones and alcohol each week than that.
And after probably less than 10 years you had fully paid off your HECS debt, no?
Get a grip, lad.
Razor - it’s about 22 odd schooners a fortnight, man!
Seriously - compare the loss of $90 a fortnight from taxable income and borrowing eligibility and the increase in the price of housing, and maybe you’ll see there’s a point for those lucky enough to be on theaverage median income.
Razor wants to tax the workers’ right to a beer!
But Mark, is that better than upfront payments? I think it is.
Probably, Nic - but I’m not as sure as you that free education is either not feasible or bad policy!
“Upfront payments” is a furphy, since almost everyone will get a loan and start repayments later. The issue in terms of discouraging participation is debt and repayments. HECS is a special loan from the Commonwealth which goes some way toward ameliorating this problem.
1. repayments are contingent on income. You don’t start repaying until your income reaches a certain level. As Mark points out the current repayments start at far too low an income and the rates are too steep, but that’s not a problem with HECS per se.
2. The loan has a zero real interest rate. This is important to stop personal debt levels from getting totally out of control.
3. Repayments are collected through the tax system, which is nice and simple.
4. The Commonwealth is the sole provider of the loans, which avoids “losing” money to middlemen. In the early 90’s about half of the US financial aid went to students with the rest “subsidising” the financial institutions providing the loans. (The Commonwealth also adds a 33% surcharge to the loan, which they market as a 25% discount to those who don’t take the loan. This is another highly regressive aspect of the current implementation.)
As for “free education”, it’s a poorly-framed piece of rhetoric that distracts us from the real issue which is how to we ensure that financal considerations are not the primary barrier stopping people from accessing higher education. Abolishing tuition fees is not the only possible solution.