^M
Submission to the Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy
University of Queensland Union
Prepared by: Bruce Lines, Postgraduate Organiser
Authorised by: Cynthia Kennedy, University of Queensland Union President
Preamble
The University of Queensland Union (UQU) is a student controlled organisation. It has represented students’ interests at the University of Queensland for the last 87 years. Currently, the UQU represents over 24,000 members. In servicing the UQ student body the Union has developed diverse operations including both Trading Areas and Student Services Areas which encompass postgraduate, education, employment, welfare, women’s, clubs and societies, and activities areas. The Student Services Areas offer advocacy, academic advice, academic seminars, and student campaign organisation. The UQU coordinates the bulk of student representation on UQ committees and ensures that students remain effective and respected stakeholders in University governance.
The Review Committee’s terms of reference and the themes, around which submissions are to be based, are extraordinarily broad. In commenting on these themes, the UQU is, as would be expected, concerned with representing the interests of students. In principle, the UQU is opposed to anything other than a publicly funded university system, since such a system is in the best interest of all students and efficiently addresses principles of equity and access. Given that the erosion of a publicly funded system is already underway, the UQU is still interested in working within the established framework to ensure that future changes and directions in the Higher Education sector are administered equitably and promote the highest level of quality possible. The submission attempts, modestly, to outline a vision for the sector which is consistent with resolving often identified dilemmas in the organisation of the sector.
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements are gratefully given to the National Tertiary Education Union for their discussion papers on this Review and to the authors of a number of submissions already published on the Internet prior to the completion of this paper.
Key Points
The Higher Education and VET sectors should remain distinct, but have a closer working relationship.
Regional universities will have an increasingly important role to play, and the vibrancy of these institutions should not be threatened by funding cuts.
More incentives should be given for Australian students to study internationally.
Deregulation has not delivered greater efficiency in the postgraduate coursework area, and has seriously undermined equity targets in student load. For this reason greater deregulation of undergraduate education is opposed.
The university system should be protected from the principles of competition policy. Operating grants should be awarded competitively through definitions of excellence which encompass all aspects of a university’s mission. There should be a teaching quantum in addition to the research quantum.
Current levels of public funding must be at least maintained.
Voucher systems have so many inherent problems that they cannot seriously have a role in Higher Education.
Corporate and industry sectors should contribute to Higher Education funding through taxation. Tax incentives are vital in supporting both research projects and scholarships.
State Governments have some role to play in the funding of capital works and research projects.
Research excellence must be recognised across the system. The research quantum awarded according to discipline-specific national norms.
Career opportunities for research students need to be assessed.
Theme one: the role of higher education in Australia’s society and economy
It is perhaps a truism to state that the university system contributes to the social and cultural life of the nation, the nature of which is inestimably valuable and, largely unquantifiable. More specifically, though, universities also make contributions, not just to the economy, but to the economic, industrial and corporate culture of Australia. It is this culture which will ultimately determine the position of Australia in the global economy. The contribution to these cultures can be narrowly determined in terms of the number, diversity and skill level of graduates and in research outcomes. It is not a static process, but involves a dynamic interplay of forces, the most obvious of which are government and industry imperatives and a degree of academic freedom; all of which impact on course design, teaching and research. In the end, though, the way in which government regulates (or does not regulate) the interaction of these forces will dictate the nature of higher education contributions, the sector's culture, and its impact on other important social/industrial/corporate cultures.
If higher education is a major national resource, diminishing that resource by inhibiting access to education or curbing research output is untenable. The trend towards mass education should not be reversed. Indeed, the need to educate more people will undoubtedly continue. The impacts of information technology, unemployment, workplace reform, and workplace practices have created an environment where individuals will require constant education, and retraining. The realities of multiployment, reskilling and multiple career paths are already with us, and as a consequence the average age of students is likely to rise as will the demand for education, and the demand for more flexible forms of education. The higher education sector must be able to meet this demand if a globally competitive workforce is to emerge. This kind of workforce cannot be sustained without equitable access for able individuals. Accordingly, access, and generational access, should be the expectation for most Australians. If this is to be achieved then one of the most important roles for government over the next twenty years is to ensure that the balance between limited deregulation and access and equity is effectively struck.
The role of Vocational Education and Training (VET) can be expanded, and its relationship to Higher Education modified, to achieve this aim. While the differences between VET and higher education are becoming less apparent, one major distinction is that higher education institutions, in comparison to TAFE colleges and specialist research institutions like the CSIRO, are comprehensive institutions which offer degrees, produce research, and have community service functions. This distinction should remain intact. Greater cooperation between the sectors, though, should be encouraged. Some universities already manage TAFE colleges, and where institutions are co-located or where some clear strategic advantage is apparent, then more universities and TAFE colleges could be amalgamated. VET services are traditionally cheaper to operate and government incentives should be supplied to encourage cooperation between sectors, such that greater articulation and two-way traffic are realised. As stated though, UQU is of the opinion that distinctions between the sectors should be preserved.
It should be noted at this point, that communities/regions which lack universities will be disadvantaged over the next two decades. One of the offshoots of information technology, and the flexible delivery of education which individuals will need to access over a lifetime, will be the flexibility of knowledge, and flexible definitions of knowledge. Only a very diverse higher education sector will be able to deliver these knowledges, and the place of smaller and regional universities will be crucial in this process.
Theme two: factors affecting the demand for and provision of higher education over the next 10 to 20 years
The proliferation of knowledge, applied to the workplace, will undoubtedly control the demand for education. All indications are that that demand will increase. The sector, institutions, and courses, must be flexible to reflect market forces, globalisation and the growth of information.
As identidfied in theme one trends indicate that smaller, regional universities will have an increasingly important role to play over the next two decades. There is no reason to suspect that all universities will not be able to compete internationally. In fact, the way in which many smaller universities have met the challenge of shoring up holes left by shrinking public funding is innovative and encouraging. Importantly, they indicate flexibility in relation to responding to the market place. Most institutions have attempted to find a niche for themselves, either through course offerings, course content or delivery style. Regional universities have helped pioneer distance education, developed strategic alliances with overseas organisations and offered successful and competitive courses in Australian capital cities, the heart of ‘sandstone university territory’. Many have paved the way in cooperative agreements with the VET sector. Clearly, different responses to different needs have, and will continue to, enhance diversity and not the drawing of an arbitrary line between institutions. Thus, the existing vibrancy of these institutions should not be curbed in any way.
If it is accepted that newer universities will continue to develop niche operations, then students will be presented with a range of course options and delivery modes; factors which will help meet demands for continual education. However, the infrastructure to deliver education in relevant forms and financial disincentives must also be taken into account. The Australian higher education system is currently underfunded in regard to technology infrastructure. Suitable infrastructure must be provided if Australia is to transform its education delivery, meet national education demands, and compete with other international education providers. At the same time, financial disincentives cannot be such that individuals would prefer to remain underskilled and ultimately redundant rather than risk personal investment in education.
All of the above mentioned issues are vital if the Australian higher education system is to remain domestically relevant and globally competent. When international education service providers emerge via technology they will target undergraduate education and postgraduate training, not research. Accordingly, our national undergraduate and postgraduate coursework offerings must be strong, diverse and regionally grounded, as well as more financially appealing than competitors.
Government would do well to preempt globalisation by offering more incentives for international students to study in Australia and by promoting more education exchange between regions, particularly Asia. For example, child care costs for international students should more closely mirror those of Australian students. Other international student on-costs should be examined. In addition, Australian students should be encouraged to study in Asia and other countries, such that overseas study for short periods can be accredited to Australian courses. Such arrangements would foster international perspectives in students, and also reduce the ability of overseas institutions to ‘poach’ Australian students.
Theme three: regulatory and administrative framework for higher education
There can be no doubt that accountability in the expenditure of public funds is of the utmost importance. Even so, some commentators within and outside the sector complain the educational profiles process places an undue burden on university administrations. The reality is though, that reporting requirements have become less prescriptive over the last few years. Universities have been allowed greater scope to self-regulate activities and apportion funded load. Since higher education is a public good, it is appropriate that the sector be required to detail how it has met its obligations. Any form of public accountability, particularly where large, complex and multi-site institutions are concerned, will involve a degree of bureaucracy. The only alternative is further deregulation.
However, deregulation in the higher education context, has many attendant problems. The consumers of higher education, including students, are not necessarily discerning. Popularity of subjects, courses, programs and universities are not constants. There is no guarantee that the market place is a more efficient or effective regulator for distributing public funds. There is no guarantee that consumer ‘choice’ will be for the public good. The disempowerment of student organisations, in States where Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) has been introduced, does not contribute to solving problems presented by a deregulating sector. At the very time when competition is beginning to have effects in the sector, and when services are meant to rely increasingly on the market, it seems senseless to silence one of the major stakeholders in the market; the students themselves. It is a particularly valid point in that the indications are, thus far, that most educational institutions are not effective self-regulators in a deregulated market place. The deregulation of the postgraduate coursework market is a case in point.
Since the progressive deregulation of coursework awards in 1988, student organisations have been left to pick up the pieces. Nine years since their inception, most major institutions do not refer to deregulated postgraduate coursework education in their equity plans, despite evidence which suggests that disadvantaged social groups are under represented at the coursework level. UQU has lobbied its University for many years in an attempt to persuade management to consider available statistics on equity provision, recommendations of the Stanley Report (1995) and, more recently, the HEC report on Professional Education and Credentialism (1996). The UQU has proposed a range of equity measures, including the establishment of HECS-liable scholarships. To date there have been many positive responses from University administration and no developments. Recent cuts to funded load at the postgraduate coursework level will now mean that nearly all places will be fee-paying. From next year, the university plans to offer at least one ‘initial professional entry’ course on an up-front fee-paying basis. This is all occurring in a climate where, as has been stated, individuals need to have access to courses for retraining and reskilling purposes. The fact that students enrolled in these courses are ineligible for Austudy or scholarships does not bode well for that market or for Australia as a whole.
The point of the example is that equity and access must still be prescribed by government even in a deregulated market place. The alternative is to defeat purposes of a mass education system. At the end of the day, it is not only recipients of public funding who must be accountable, it is also a responsibility of the government to be accountable for its allocations. Accordingly, the government must continue to allocate funded places to institutions. It must also offer incentives for students to enrol in disciplines linked with national economic efforts. Many within the sector predict enrolment trends under the current differentiated HECS system which will have major, negative, impacts on the future quality and productivity of science and engineering sectors. Only government can provide the national vision to direct growth in specific disciplines.
In the current financial climate it would appear unwise for private institutions to be allowed to vie for a shrinking share of public funds. Likewise, the UQU argues that commercial activities of the higher education sector, largely initiated as a way of generating additional revenue, should be protected from the principles of competition policy. Instead, the quality of higher education courses and teaching should be assured by broadening the scope of performance indicators, and increasing the funding poportion allocated for performance based outcomes. In this way, greater competition between existing higher education institutions will be promoted. To begin with, a greater share of University Operating Grants should be awarded on a competitive basis, and in a manner that no longer discriminates against diverse contributions of excellence. Current performance indicators do not reflect the diversity of performance. Just as the research quantum is allocated out of a percentage of total Operating Grants, so too should teaching and community service provision be awarded competitively. An emphasis should be placed on innovation. In this manner, the contribution that universities make to regional communities can be appropriately awarded and educating will be properly raised to the same level of value and prestige as researching. Although appropriate mechanisms may be extremely difficult to put in place, it may be appropriate for one of the products of education, employability, to be another means for competitively awarding funding. If university allocations had a relation to the percentage of graduates who were still wanting full-time employment, then it would certainly ensure that universities remained responsive to the market. It would also promote greater collaboration between higher education and business.
Finally, this submission has already suggested that greater promotion between the VET and higher education sectors should be promoted. Under such a scheme, more interaction with the secondary school sector and the other sectors can be envisaged. Certainly, more flexible entry to university is feasible. For example, universities could be allowed the freedom to decide that motivation and not simply final year secondary school results are prerequisites for university entry. An interview system could compliment existing structures. One outcome of interviews could be a referral to TAFE or admission to university. Accordingly, the UQU recommends that regulations regarding entry requirements become more flexible.
Theme four: financing higher education teaching and research training
Current levels of public funding, at the very least, must be maintained. If private funding begins to outweigh public funding substantially it will be extremely difficult for the public to influence higher education directions. If the nation’s objectives are to be achieved over the next two decades, then financing of the higher education sector must increase, even if the Federal Government is unwilling to finance that increase. There is also a limit on extra funds the sector itself can make available. The sector has effectively been making efficiency gains over the last decade. There is only so far that staff and resources can be stretched. Financing a staff pay rise this year, out of existing Operating Grants, will stretch resources to the limit.
As stated, the differentiated HECS system needs careful consideration in regard to disciplines of strategic national priority. In addition, the current state of postgraduate coursework award regulations (or the lack thereof) needs urgent attention. There is only so much that students can, or are willing, to pay for their education. The failure of the postgraduate coursework market to take off in many universities, and the fact that demand has actually declined in others, is indicative. It was expected that current workplace trends would create a growing demand for additional qualifications. There is no reason to suspect that this expectation is misplaced. Accordingly, the fact that demand has levelled or even declined can only be attributed to financial disincentives. Merely shifting public expenditure from higher education to unemployment or other associated benefits does not make sense as a public policy. Already some universities have indicated they will not charge fees for additional undergraduate places. Most universities in Queensland are poised to make the same decision, simply because there is no real student demand. It is in the interests of the nation that the public benefit that arises from the private expenditure of students be given greater consideration. Students should not contribute more than they already are, and, in some instances, students should contribute substantially less. As indicated, a voucher system is so problematic that it is the UQU view that vouchers cannot seriously have a role in the higher education system. If media reports are to be trusted, then the administrative cost associated with vouchers is also prohibitive.
If consumers of higher education can be identified as students, industry, business and the public (in terms of general public benefits of an educated society) then clearly, individual students are the least able to pay. Yet it is the students who are asked to increase contributions. When the first step towards deregulation of postgraduate courses occurred in 1988, the general rationale was that business would supply scholarships for its employees to undertake up-front fee-paying courses. This has failed to eventuate, and private investment in higher education remains low by international standards, even as the private contribution of students is now large by international standards.
Accordingly, it seems obvious that business and industry must contribute more to the higher education system. To begin with, tax incentives for scholarships at all levels of study, and particularly at postgraduate coursework level, need to be provided as a matter of some urgency. The UQU also asserts that the existence of a graduate tax in the absence of a targeted business tax is inequitable and improperly estimates private benefits of education. As outlined under the first theme of the Submission, higher education makes important contributions not only by providing the nation with graduates but also by contributing to the cultures of organisations through its graduates. The impact of this fact should not be underestimated. It is only proper that business and industry contribute to higher education through taxation, perhaps to be applied to organisations which reach a certain size or annual turnover. There has also been some media speculation that an equitable, more progressive, taxation system may solve some of the present government’s financial dilemmas.
In addition, States should be required to provide some support for higher education. Statistics show that few students cross State borders to attend university. At the same time, the growth in regional and newer universities and competitive research structures has created a framework where research is often geographically relevant. Accordingly, the States could be required to offer some support in terms of capital expenditure and specific research projects.
This Submission has also outlined the basis of a system whereby the portion of competitively allocated funds is increased to account for research, as well as teaching and community service functions and that innovation should be a major component of the formula. The basis of the UQU argument is that current performance indicators do not reflect the diversity of the system or reward sites of particular excellence. After all, excellence in one institution may be of a different kind or quality in another. All current universities should be rewarded for truly excellent contributions to the nation.
Theme five: funding of higher education research
It is a familiar argument, usually identified with ‘sandstone’, or the ‘big 8’, universities, that research should be centred in a handful of institutions. Often, these same institutions, confident in their ability to attract students, argue for greater deregulation in the education market. It appears contradictory to argue for protection and privilege on the one hand and deregulation on the other and these arguments are nothing more than self serving. In a practical sense it would also be extremely difficult to draw distinction between universities on the basis of research. No one institution has a monopoly on quality. For example, the development of specific research niches is dominated by the newer universities. The former institutes of technology dominate information and communication technology. These niches should not be placed at risk. In addition, research activity and the discovery of knowledge inform teaching at all levels. Thus, specific universities should not be designated as centres of postgraduate research training, either, or the result will be an information impoverished undergraduate training sector.
Added incentives for industry to invest in higher education research, and specific project funding from State Governments will help increase research infrastructure. Performance indicators in allocating the research quantum, however, also need adjustment. The current system promotes unjust averaging rather than real competition. While applied research funding has increased with funding to CRC’s and related projects, the majority of funding is allocated to basic research. Current research performance is judged too narrowly and there is an assumption that all information and research outcomes can be processed by the same methods. Accordingly, statistical and survey methods of research are probably over represented in ARC applications. By the same token, ARC demands appear to favour research modelled on the sciences, and the majority of successful funding is awarded to research teams. In terms of the research quantum, institutions are awarded a share of funding according to performance. Institutions then generally award a share of the funding to faculties based on similar formulas. The result is that internal university faculties compete for funding with totally unrelated disciplines located in other faculties. This can only apply an averaging influence. What is required are discipline specific national norms for research performance. It makes more sense for comparable disciplines from separate institutions to be competing for research funds. Such an approach will truly promote the diversity of thought, approach and application that the nation will need over the coming decades.
If competitive funding mechanisms are expanded to include teaching and community service functions, it follows that more staff should be allowed to specialise in research, while others specialise in teaching. In the current corporatised culture, it appears ludicrous that university staff be required to devote equal time to research, teaching and administration. In almost every existing sector, specialisation has become the key to performance. There seems no reason that this principle cannot be applied to the higher education sector. Accordingly, academic promotion criteria should be broadened to allow staff to progress on the basis of teaching merit.
It is generally understood that postgraduate research students make a significant contribution to the sector's research performance. However, these students cannot be allowed to be treated as cheap research and development labour. With diminishing academic prospects and limited research only positions, the sector cannot continue to churn out research students simply to buoy its own output. The point is particularly relevant when developments in the labour market are taken into account. Corporate and industrial sectors have often made the point that PhD graduates are not necessarily well adjusted to industry needs and practices; professional doctorates have been introduced to provide more flexible and practical doctorate level education. Accordingly, if universities are to continue to educate students traditionally, job prospects are paramount. At the very least, the number of research fellowships and postdoctoral positions need to be increased.