I forget which chapter of the “education revolution” higher ed was in Kevin Rudd’s policy speech last year, but it was rather thin reading. Aside from Future Fellowships and student scholarships, a lot of the vexed and vexing questions about higher ed were left for later. There were persistent rumours about at the time that Stephen Smith had privately assured various people in the sector that more money would be on its way in 2009, but of course he’s not the Education Minister and the budgetary outlook has altered significantly in the seven or so months since the election. Still, for what it’s worth, the Bradley review commissioned by Julia Gillard has released a discussion paper [pdf] for public comment and submissions. It doesn’t give much away as to what the review might recommend, but it’s a bit of a policy wonk’s dream - a very comprehensive collation of available statistics and relevant literature on most relevant areas of higher education in this country. Submissions are due in by 31 July, and the questions people are asked to address do give a fairly good idea of how the government sees higher education - largely in terms of “human capital”, innovation and its economic contribution - though equity does get a guernsey, as does (sotto voce) the social and intellectual roles of universities.
14 Responses to “Review of Australian Higher Education”
Leave a Reply
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Oh sweet Dawkins, not another review! Seriously, hasn’t the Higher Education Sector has probably been reviewed more often over the last 20 years than any other area of the Federal government?! Reform fatigue much…!
IMHO, at the end of the day, the biggest issue with Higher Ed is money. The debate will be about where it should come from (students, government, private sector, philanthropy), what the percentage breakdown of funding sources should be and the mechanism of delivery (central control from DEST or decentralised to individual unis). Ideally, once the money comes in, Universities should be free to manage their own affairs in an open accountable way as much as possible without central control from HQ!
It’s not just money. There are issues with disappearing “traditional” departments (physics, maths, philosophy, and so on), and an upcoming staff shortage (though I am personally looking forward to that…hello Professor Merkel…
)
Yes, Antonio, it’s money. And there’s little sign yet that the review of higher education, the review of the national innovation system, the review of research and research training, the development of a research quality assessment mechanism, and consultations on the half-formed notion of ‘mission-based funding compacts’ for universities - to give the full list of Stuff Going On in Higher Education at the moment - will result in any more unencumbered funding for the sector. Based on the trend over the past few years - one started by the previous government, and (so far) continued by the current one - any new money the sector sees is going to be contestable.
Yeah true Professor Merkel. But as you know, the bureaucrats always blame money for staff shortages and departmental cutbacks. Noone in Higher Ed (students, staff, VCs) will think this review amounts to much if it doesn’t include $$$$.
Ah yes, research quality.
A great way to provoke endless bunfights between academics all claiming that the journal they have just been published in should go up the list.
It’s not just a problem of money being available but money being passed to the right department. QUT’s School of Mathematics has four staff fewer than it should, based on funding models (and believe me, mathematicians can crunch numbers). Too much of it is going to the “prestigious” degrees rather than to where the money is actually needed.
That’s also a function of income from international students, which is a point made in the report.
Haven’t they been doing this since 1986 or so?
if the people involved in putting together the initial discussion paper are anything to go by, Labor are pretty serious about this review.
i hope no one is sooking about the number of reviews (well, the number of subjects being reviewed), but the possibility that they’ll come to nothing as far as positive change goes.
It’s a quality paper. Hopefully with the issues framed clearly, action will follow. Fingers crossed anyway!
A guarantee that Uni film & media students (or whatever they get to call them today) get to visit the set of Justice League of America, or any big sci-fi/fantasy films & shows similar to Dark City, Farscape, The Crow & The Matrix series…I bet Canadian students get experience visiting the many film & TV sets making American stuff over there.
Can be very handy for making contacts, gaining real world experience. Then they can use experience to make their own small budget films. Asian cinema might blossom here too.
Unis can be bridges. Including language students. Modern Asian studies. So nothing is LOST IN TRANSLATION.
Don’t want no mushroom clouds on set.
And income support, for both foreign and domestic students.
Sam Clifford,
in the case of maths a very particular calculation may be done. Last year the Federal dept increased tyhe amount paid per maths student (maths subject EFTSU) by a substantial %. Some maths depts think this increase hasn’t been passed on to their dept. It should be a simple calculation to look at student enrolments and check.
(This seems to be an instance where the skulduggery may be internal to the campus, not the fault of Fed Govt.)
Which is a perfect example of why Antonio’s ideal — “Ideally, once the money comes in, Universities should be free to manage their own affairs in an open accountable way as much as possible without central control from HQ” — makes for a truly delightful fantasy but is otherwise misguided.
History — certainly the last eleven years — has seen the transformation of universities into corporations and and witnessed the birth of a new species: the university CEO (formerly known as the VC). Nowadays, whatever “money comes in” is used by universities to manage only an increase in budget surplus, and only those measures that are thought to aid in the attainment of that objective will see any extra cash. And it’s no good saying that if the universities are left alone they will return their attention to traditional objectives of research and education, since the aforementioned species has an inbred contempt for such things and a stranglehold on power. Indeed, it has gone so far as to implement a remarkably successful eugenics program aimed at eliminating the academic DNA from ever lower levels of academic management (from Chancellory down to Head of School and below) and to build an army of homogenetic “Pro-Vice Chancellors” to keep the miscreant and the miscegenous at bay.
What’s needed now is more intervention (from a Minister for Education who is supposed to represent both the ideals of education and research and the interests of labour) to ensure that funding is directed towards academic activities and to improving staff conditions and salaries, so as to reset higher education’s heading. First step, IMO, should be rewriting the genetic code of every university executive from faculty level up.