The Quality of Australian Higher Education: An Overview Introduction The Australian higher education sector comprises, for the most part, autonomous, self-accrediting universities established under State, Territory (see Endnote 1) or (in the case of the Australian National University) Commonwealth Government legislation. With the exception of Bond University, these universities are publicly-funded, that is, they receive operating grant funding from the Commonwealth Government. This report is the first in an annual series which will look at quality across Australian universities. The quality assurance framework is outlined and information provided on the performance of the sector. Areas which receive particular attention include university teaching and graduate outcomes. The report publishes the 1999-2001 quality assurance and improvement plans of 36 (see Endnote 2) of Australia’s 38 publicly-funded universities. Also included are the plans of two institutions which, like the publicly-funded universities, receive triennium operating grant funding through the education, training and youth affairs portfolio – the Australian Maritime College and Batchelor College. The changing environment Globalisation, the mass expansion of educational opportunity and technological developments are creating a changing environment for higher education systems across the world. This environment is, in its turn, creating pressure for concerted action by institutions and government agencies within and across countries to improve the way they approach quality assurance. International organisations such as the OECD have called for new structures and new approaches to quality assurance and accreditation, with the USA, the United Kingdom and New Zealand being examples of countries where quality assurance and enhancement have become a major focus. A number of multilateral bodies and agreements (ASEAN, APEC, NAFTA, GATS) are actively dealing with the issue of inter-country recognition of each other’s qualifications, and with the student and labour market mobility issues that are linked to educational quality. A range of bench-marking initiatives are being implemented with the goal of enabling universities to be assessed against various quality indicators by country, by region, and even globally. Australia is well aware that it needs to have a leading-edge approach to quality assurance for its higher education institutions to maintain and develop a major education export industry, as well as satisfy their "customers" at home. Electronic communication is enabling our competitors to provide education services in Australia and in our key markets abroad. The pressure to deliver mass higher education and life-long learning in a more deregulated framework, with a greater number of private and international players in the market, is making quality enhancement in our publicly-funded universities a more challenging endeavour than it used to be.Australia also recognises that different countries will have different approaches to dealing with quality assurance and that there is no single prescriptive model to suit every system. The Australian approach is one that values the autonomy of our universities while insisting on accountability and "value for money". It entails the development of a national framework which safeguards the integrity of the system and allows Australia to market a quality product internationally. The quality assurance framework The Australian quality assurance framework for higher education is continuing to evolve in response to the challenges and pressures which have faced the system over the past decade.In the late 1990s, the various legislative provisions which apply to the establishment and operation of universities in the States and mainland Territories and which protect the integrity of Australian higher education award nomenclature, remain at the heart of the quality assurance framework. Other elements of the framework are discussed below. Recent developments This section considers recent Commonwealth Government initiatives aimed at helping to consolidate one of the critical elements of the quality assurance framework, namely, the capacity of Australia’s self-governing, publicly-funded universities to focus on ways of maintaining and improving the standard of their operations and integrating quality assurance into their strategic planning processes.1993-95: Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education The Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (CQAHE), which operated for the three-year period 1993 to 1995, reviewed quality assurance practices and outcomes in publicly-funded universities and recommended to the Commonwealth Government the allocation of the Quality Assurance and Enhancement element of operating grant ($76.8 million in 1994, $71.3 million in 1995 and $50 million in 1996). All publicly-funded universities chose to be involved in this process. The Committee’s terms of reference expired at the end of 1995 with the general consensus being that the quality reviews had contributed to the changing culture within the university system. The increasing recognition accorded to the importance of teaching quality, in particular, is discussed later in this report.While the Quality Assurance and Enhancement funding programme was successful in helping both to build new processes within universities and to effect a change of culture, it carried high administrative costs and was relatively demanding for the sector. In consequence, the programme was not institutionalised as a permanent part of the funding and regulatory framework. Post-1995 developments With the end of the Quality and Enhancement programme, the Commonwealth Government asked the Higher Education Council (HEC) to develop a structure which included, among other things, the integration of quality improvement in the yearly negotiations between the Commonwealth and institutions (the educational profiles process), reviews on particular aspects of higher education from time to time, general guidance to universities and public reporting of progress made in quality improvement in the sector. The HEC reported to the Commonwealth Government at the beginning of 1998, concentrating on a discussion of basic principles and processes and summarising the large amount of information submitted by universities. These summaries provided a description of objectives, key indicators and outcomes under the headings of teaching and learning, research, community service, management and equity.The quality assurance framework has been further consolidated with the Government’s requirement that, from 1998 onwards, triennially-funded institutions include quality assurance and improvement plans in the documentation required as part of the educational profiles process. Universities, along with the Australian Maritime College and Batchelor College, are asked to submit a plan which outlines goals and aims, the strategies adopted to achieve them and the indicators (and outcomes) that are used to assess the success and quality of what is being achieved in the areas of teaching and learning, research, community service and management. The structure and content of the plan are left to institutions, in line with the Government's view that responsibility for quality lies with individual universities. As a minimum requirement, however, the plans are expected to include a description of graduate attributes, feedback from employers on the quality of graduates and outcomes data on the employment of recent graduates, as well as on graduate perceptions of teaching. The last two indicators are derived from the Graduate Careers Council of Australia’s Graduate Destination Survey (and the associated Course Experience Questionnaire) which is sent to all graduates of participating Australian higher education institutions. The current approach taken by the Commonwealth in respect of the quality assurance and improvement plans balances the need for public reporting with institutional autonomy. It adds another dimension to the rigorous accountability processes embedded in universities’ legislation and the provision of information to the Commonwealth via the educational profiles process. It enables the Commonwealth to report to the wider community on quality and quality assurance processes while recognising that universities themselves have ultimate responsibility for the quality of what they do and that individual students are responsible for carefully selecting the institution and course which suit their particular needs. Quality assurance management in higher education institutions The quality assurance and improvement plans published in this report indicate that universities have a variety of approaches to implementing quality assurance, with a number of the plans articulating highly structured and comprehensive approaches to quality management. While these approaches vary among institutions to suit particular circumstances, shared features include the development of institutional and faculty/department/unit-based quality assurance and improvement guidelines; systematic reporting requirements and reporting lines; the adoption of institutional performance indicators and institution-wide performance analysis; and the involvement of senior institutional managers in the development, implementation and review of quality assurance and improvement policies. Some institutions have established quality committees or units and it is not unusual for quality assurance across the institution to be coordinated at the Pro-Vice Chancellor or Deputy Vice-Chancellor level. A number of the 1999-2001 plans highlight the role of University Council and Academic Board in the quality management process.There is much common ground in institutional processes for the monitoring and review of performance. The 1999-2001 plans indicate, for example, that nearly all institutions have in place a system of formal, cyclical reviews with the participation of external assessors, such as academic peers and industry representatives, playing a prominent role in the development/evaluation of programmes and organisational units. Other monitoring processes involving external feedback include periodic surveys. Every university, (see Endnote 3) for instance, now participates in the annual Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) and Graduate Destinations Survey (GDS) of the Graduate Careers Council of Australia and a number conduct their own student and employer surveys as adjuncts to the GCCA’s. For some institutions, participation in Australian and/or international higher education networks and the benchmarking projects undertaken by these networks are a significant part of the quality management process. Examples of higher education networks mentioned in the 1999-2001 plans include two international networks—Commonwealth Higher Education Management Services (CHEMS) and Universitas 21. Other examples are the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) and the Australian Technology Network (ATN). Some of the plans refer to the certification of institutional management processes against the ISO9000 standards of the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO). Other aspects of quality assurance The quality improvement plans are the public face of quality assurance in Australia’s higher education system, providing one indication to the wider community of how effectively institutions are managing the process of maintaining and improving the quality of their operations. Institutions do not operate, however, in a vacuum and there are a number of other branches to the quality assurance framework.Government has a key role in assuring the quality of the higher education system, with the Acts of Parliament which establish universities and determine their public reporting responsibilities being central to the quality assurance framework, along with the various legislative provisions governing the use of higher award education nomenclature. More broadly, the Commonwealth Government, as the provider of most of the public funding directed to Australian universities, is continuing its longstanding role of monitoring the health of the sector and taking action to help universities operate to maximum effectiveness. The 1988 White Paper (see Endnote 4) and the 1997 West Review (see Endnote 5) are recent examples of large-scale investigations, while at the ongoing operational level, the annually conducted educational profiles negotiations enable the Commonwealth to keep its finger on the pulse of institutional activity, and to provide support and advice to individual universities without unnecessary intervention in their affairs. Other significant elements of the quality assurance framework include the following:
Commonwealth Government funding initiatives aimed at encouraging innovation and good practice. Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) The AQF is a comprehensive, nationally consistent but flexible framework for all qualifications in post-compulsory education and training and a key policy instrument for protecting the credibility of the Australian education and training system. The Framework, which has been developed under instruction from Australia’s Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), was introduced Australia-wide in 1995 and is being phased in over five years with full implementation scheduled to occur by the year 2000. The higher education institutions listed on the AQF as being empowered by government to issue their own qualifications are at Table 1.Table 1: Higher education institutions listed in the Australian Qualifications Framework
To achieve the status of a university recognised by the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, institutions must be able to demonstrate their capacity to meet the various criteria set out in the Guidelines on the Criteria for a University Recognised by the AVCC. As listed below, the AVCC has developed Guidelines and Codes of Practice for member universities on a range of matters relevant to quality and standards: Code of Ethical Practice in Offshore Provision of Education and Educational Services by Australian Higher Education Institutions Code of Ethical Practice in the Provision of Education to International Students by Australian Universities Code of Practice for the Public Disclosure of Data from the Graduate Careers Council of Australia’s Graduate Destinations Survey and Course Experience Questionnaire Guidelines for Quality Assurance in University Course Development and Review Guidelines on Postgraduate Fee Courses for Australian Students Guidelines Relating to Students with Disabilities Statement and Guidelines on Research Practice (jointly with the National Health and Medical Research Council) Universities and their Students: Expectations and Responsibilities – Generic Guidelines External validation Although Australian universities are self-accrediting organisations (see Endnote 6) which develop their own courses and award their own qualifications, elements of external validation play an important part in the way universities assure the standard of their provision and operations. As indicated earlier, membership of national and/or international benchmarking organisations is one such element for a number of institutions. Another is the use of external examiners for most research degrees and some honours degrees. In undergraduate education, professional bodies, associations and registration boards accredit courses in areas such as health and medicine, law, accounting, engineering and architecture, as seen in Table 2. Table 2: Professional bodies and associations which accredit university courses
As part of its goal of assisting the higher education sector to maintain and enhance the quality of its provision, the Commonwealth has recently commissioned, under the Evaluations and Investigations Programme (EIP), a pilot project which is examining the issue of how universities determine whether their degrees are of a good standard. The project will report on various approaches taken in some individual institutions to the development and review of courses and curricula, including the extent and effectiveness of external validation processes. Sector-wide performance indicators The indicators that are published in the Commonwealth’s Characteristics and Performance of Higher Education Institutions provide a measure of the common features of higher education institutions as well as their diversity. There are three major data sources for the performance indicators: the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs’ (DETYA) Higher Education Students, Staff and Finance Collections; the DETYA Research Data Collection; and the Graduate Careers Council of Australia’s (GCCA) annual Graduate Destination Survey (GDS) and Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). In addition to being published annually by the Commonwealth, the indicators are used by other publications such as the commercial booklet, The Good Universities Guide, to assist students select institutions and courses of study. Table 3 lists the published indicators.Table 3: Indicators published in Characteristics and Performance of Higher Education Institutions
Encouraging innovation and good practice As seen in Table 4, the Commonwealth Government provides targeted funding under the Higher Education Innovation Programme (HEIP) to encourage innovation and good practice. As discussed later, there has been in recent years a strong focus on encouraging quality in university teaching via the Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development (CUTSD) programme (see Endnote 7) which has received funding of $20 million for the three-year period 1997-99.Table 4: Examples of projects funded through the higher education innovation programme with a major focus on innovation and quality
Performance of the higher education sector The Commonwealth Government’s goals for the higher education sector are worth noting in any assessment of the system’s performance. These goals are the use of higher education resources effectively to address Australia's social, cultural, economic and labour market objectives. This includes meeting the increasing need for an educated and skilled population and maintaining a diverse higher education system which takes a long-term and independent approach in pursuing its teaching, scholarly and research functions. The growing proportion of the population with a degree (14.3 per cent in 1998 as against 7.9 per cent in 1989) is only one indicator of whether the Commonwealth's broad goals are being met. Other indicators include the diversity of the system, the extent to which graduates are satisfied with the quality of their experience at university, the success of graduates in proceeding to further study and/or securing employment and, correspondingly, the satisfaction of employers with the skills and attributes which universities seek to instil in their graduates. Among the significant indicators for research are the size of the sector’s contribution to the national research effort and the international impact of research.The remainder of this overview looks at the diversity of the sector and considers its performance in relation to the Commonwealth’s goals across the key areas of teaching and student services, graduate attributes, graduate outcomes and research. Diversity The diversity of the Australian higher education system is articulated in the publication, Characteristics and Performance of Higher Education Institutions, which provides indicators covering: source of funds, distribution of expenses, research funding, equity, gender and age distribution of students, basis of admission, overseas students, mode of study, course breadth and staffing. Some indicators of the diversity of Australia’s publicly-funded universities are provided in Table 5. To name just a few elements of the system’s diversity, Australia’s universities vary significantly in terms of size, range of provision and student characteristics. This lack of uniformity is itself a significant factor in the sector’s ability to deliver quality outcomes, enabling a wide range of choices for prospective students while encouraging individual institutions in an increasingly competitive environment to concentrate their efforts on programmes which best suit their own particular strengths.Table 5: Some indicators of the diversity of the Australian higher education system |
All
students 1998 |
Share of
students aged 25 and over 1998 (%) |
Ratio of
under-graduate students to post graduate students |
Share of
students studying part-time or externally |
Overseas students as share of all students 1998 (%) (1) |
Diversity
of course offering 1997 |
Ratio of
general staff (FTE) to academic staff (FTE) |
Research
income per research staff |
|
| Australian Catholic University | 10 206 |
39.8 |
3.1 |
38.3 |
2.4 |
10 |
1.0 |
1 274 |
| Australian National University | 9 361 |
35.6 |
3.1 |
27.6 |
8.8 |
13 |
1.5 |
95 726 |
| Central Queensland University | 12 031 |
51.8 |
5.1 |
60.2 |
14.8 |
14 |
1.6 |
6 606 |
| Charles Sturt University | 22 758 |
64.6 |
3.9 |
75.0 |
7.5 |
14 |
1.6 |
6 819 |
| Curtin UT | 23 542 |
39.4 |
4.4 |
40.9 |
23.3 |
17 |
1.2 |
12 335 |
| Deakin University | 27 586 |
46.7 |
4.3 |
52.4 |
8.0 |
16 |
1.6 |
5 929 |
| Edith Cowan University | 19 055 |
50.6 |
5.5 |
51.5 |
8.1 |
14 |
1.6 |
5 514 |
| Flinders University | 11 017 |
43.2 |
5.0 |
37.9 |
5.9 |
14 |
1.2 |
29 159 |
| Griffith University | 21 514 |
34.0 |
6.0 |
30.8 |
11.0 |
15 |
1.5 |
16 500 |
| James Cook University | 9 147 |
43.3 |
5.8 |
34.3 |
5.0 |
18 |
1.1 |
15 443 |
| La Trobe University | 20 954 |
33.4 |
4.3 |
30.8 |
5.8 |
16 |
1.0 |
14 180 |
| Macquarie University | 19 217 |
46.3 |
2.3 |
49.9 |
8.2 |
13 |
1.2 |
25 427 |
| Monash University | 39 742 |
36.1 |
4.0 |
40.6 |
15.8 |
14 |
1.0 |
24 590 |
| Murdoch University | 10 081 |
44.1 |
5.0 |
41.7 |
13.0 |
15 |
1.5 |
24 011 |
| Northern Territory University | 3 992 |
60.3 |
3.4 |
53.4 |
4.4 |
16 |
1.0 |
12 391 |
| Queensland UT | 31 235 |
38.6 |
4.0 |
39.2 |
7.2 |
16 |
1.7 |
9 912 |
| RMIT University | 28 719 |
40.0 |
3.4 |
39.6 |
24.2 |
15 |
1.2 |
13 256 |
| Southern Cross University | 9 067 |
59.0 |
5.6 |
59.0 |
4.5 |
13 |
1.2 |
20 424 |
| Swinburne UT | 11 013 |
34.8 |
3.6 |
35.6 |
11.8 |
9 |
1.2 |
8 633 |
| University of Adelaide | 13 605 |
31.4 |
4.1 |
27.1 |
8.7 |
18 |
1.3 |
42 994 |
| University of Ballarat | 4 359 |
28.0 |
7.6 |
23.2 |
6.7 |
12 |
1.2 |
5 808 |
| University of Canberra | 8 886 |
38.0 |
4.5 |
36.2 |
7.9 |
16 |
1.4 |
15 210 |
| University of Melbourne | 32 543 |
30.2 |
2.9 |
29.2 |
9.5 |
20 |
1.2 |
46 330 |
| University of New England | 14 496 |
71.1 |
2.2 |
78.0 |
3.0 |
18 |
1.6 |
22 181 |
| University of New South Wales | 28 323 |
34.8 |
2.3 |
33.3 |
17.7 |
18 |
1.3 |
37 801 |
| University of Newcastle | 18 463 |
36.0 |
5.9 |
35.8 |
5.9 |
16 |
1.7 |
26 182 |
| University of Queensland | 28 431 |
29.2 |
3.9 |
30.9 |
6.3 |
20 |
1.5 |
42 368 |
| University of South Australia | 23 419 |
44.7 |
4.5 |
43.2 |
10.8 |
17 |
1.2 |
15 814 |
| University of Southern Queensland | 15 561 |
57.5 |
4.5 |
75.0 |
17.7 |
13 |
1.7 |
3 734 |
| University of Sydney | 33 587 |
33.0 |
3.3 |
27.5 |
8.0 |
20 |
1.3 |
31 649 |
| University of Tasmania | 11 839 |
36.8 |
7.7 |
28.8 |
8.7 |
18 |
1.2 |
25 588 |
| University of Technology, Sydney | 22 976 |
44.5 |
2.6 |
46.3 |
8.5 |
17 |
1.5 |
12 411 |
| University of Western Australia | 12 979 |
22.0 |
4.7 |
19.1 |
10.9 |
18 |
1.4 |
43 517 |
| University of Western Sydney | 28 821 |
35.7 |
5.2 |
38.8 |
9.5 |
18 |
1.3 |
8 525 |
| University of Wollongong | 11 987 |
32.4 |
3.4 |
35.1 |
15.4 |
14 |
1.2 |
59 687 |
| Victoria UT | 17 167 |
37.5 |
3.9 |
38.3 |
15.1 |
15 |
1.0 |
5 769 |
Index representing the range of fields of study offered at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. 20 is the highest possible score indicating that all 10 broad fields of study are offered at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. DETYA Higher Education Staff Collection Research income includes national competitive grants funding, other public sector funding, and industry and other research funding as reported in the Financial Research Data Collection; research staff are research-only and teaching and research FTE reported in Selected Higher Education Staff Statistics. The originally published data in respect of the Australian Catholic University have been corrected. Teaching and student support servicesEnhancing the quality of teaching The 1990s have seen a growing recognition in Australia that good teaching is of the utmost importance for successful graduate outcomes. This recognition can be observed in both the practices of universities and government funding. Particular initiatives include:
Table 6: Examples of teaching and
learning projects funded under the Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development
(CUTSD) programme |
| Towards the support and orientation of health professionals and students in rural and remote areas |
The virtual head, a conceptual and reconstructive approach to learning the anatomy of the head and skull |
Virtual reality geology: extending field studies into the computer classroom |
A hands-on simulation game for teaching electronic commerce |
The virtual cell biology laboratory |
Using the Internet to engage distance education students in communicative, reflective and critical learning |
Aboriginal site specific mathematics materials development project |
Improving the teaching of female computer science students by borrowing teaching techniques from other disciplines |
Teaching contract law using simulated contract project teams |
Multimedia role playing simulation game in Southeast Asian history |
An ocean in the classroom: practical methods in marine conservation biology |
Development of ship dynamics demonstration models |
Worth a thousand pictures: animations for mechanics |
Development of a computer-based multimedia rat dissection |
Enhancing learning of quaternary geology: virtual field trips in the Murray Basin |
| Teaching by errors: automated peer marking of misconceptions in engineering dynamics |
| Identifying and correcting student misconceptions in economics |
Development and implementation of career-orientated learning |
Introducing enhanced case study teaching in international relations |
Student peer and self assessment of group work |
Assessment of learning: accommodating students with a disability |
Learning laryngectomy speech rehabilitation by using an interactive multimedia programme |
Astro concepts – learning underlying physics principles in conceptual astronomy |
Tulip – tertiary undergraduate literacy integration programme |
Enhancing student learning outcomes during compulsory industry experience |
The virtual patient: a clinical case-study |
Enhancing student academic writing |
Transforming essay assessment in large classes |
| The student as customer
In Australia, a university education is now a significant investment for students, whether they pay fees or contribute to the cost of their education through the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS). There is an increased focus on the student as customer and client, and pressure on institutions to provide value for money through quality teaching and learning support services, including access to tutors and teachers as well as flexible access to learning materials and resources. Universities are focusing on the student as customer/client in various ways. In recognition, for example, of the strong competition for international students, universities now provide their overseas students with orientation programmes, both in-country and on arrival in Australia, special learning support services and services which support them on their return home. These services are set out broadly in the AVCC’s Code of Ethical Practice in the Provision of Education to International Students by Australian Universities. Section 1.2 of the Preamble to the Code states:
Indicators of quality As with research, it is difficult to construct indicators which comment unambiguously on the quality of teaching and student support services, given, in particular, the diversity of Australia’s universities. Some indicators which suggest continuing improvement at the system level are given in Table 7. Table 7: Some indicators of the quality the Australian higher education system
(1) Based on the GCCA’s Course Experience Questionnaire. Measured by the number of responses 3, 4, 5 in a five point scale indicating increasing levels of satisfaction in respect of the questions contributing to the relevant scales. Data for 1993 refer to all graduates and thereafter to Bachelor graduates only. In each case, the year refers to the year in which the course was completed. The annual Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), which measures graduates’ satisfaction with their courses four months after course completion, is a valuable source of information on perceptions of various aspects of the teaching experience such as the quality of teaching, the clarity of goals and standards, the nature of assessment, the level of workload, the enhancement of generic skills and overall satisfaction. The CEQ indicators are among the tools used by institutions to measure and build on the quality of their teaching services, while data derived from the CEQ are included in the indicators published in The Characteristics and Performance of Higher Education Institutions and used by the Commonwealth to assess the health of the sector. For the Commonwealth, the CEQ is an important part of the higher education accountability process and institutions were asked to include CEQ outcomes in their 1999-2001 quality assurance and improvement plans. (For ease of reference, recent historical data derived from the CEQ on graduate satisfaction by institution are also provided in Appendix A of this report.) It is worth noting that while graduates have generally reported lower levels of satisfaction with teaching than with the other two categories of data published here (generic skills and overall satisfaction), the overall increase in the satisfaction level over the past few years in respect of teaching has been relatively high. Graduate attributesAs would be expected in a diverse higher education system where institutions have distinctive missions and goals, universities vary in their approach to defining the attributes they expect of their graduates. Nevertheless, as listed below (see Endnote 8), there is a core of attributes which most universities wish their graduates to have:
In addition to this core set, individual universities value a wide range of attributes and values which illustrate the distinctive education they are endeavouring to provide. Examples of such attributes are:
I ssues concerning graduate skills in relation to the expectations of the labour market are examined in the next section of this report. In the meantime, it is important to note that in recent years, universities have been working closely with business and industry to identify the skills and attributes valued by employers in the movement of graduates from university to work, and to incorporate the teaching, learning and assessment of these skills and attitudes in university courses of study. Universities have also adopted a range of teaching and learning techniques to develop these skills and attributes at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels, including problem-based learning, the use of work placements, the development of courses directed to specific employment outcomes and an increasing emphasis on study related to work experience and professional development.A Commonwealth-funded project which is focusing on the testing of generic skills is expected to assist universities with their ongoing task of refining and instilling the attributes they expect of their graduates. The project will develop and trial instruments which could be used in the selection of students for postgraduate courses, the assessment of the generic skills levels of commencing undergraduate students and the assessment of the generic skills levels of graduates. It is envisaged that these instruments will not only be useful to individual institutions and employers in the selection of graduates and to students themselves but, more broadly, will enable national and international benchmarking of graduate skills. Graduate outcomes Graduate outcomes are a critical indicator of how effectively universities are defining and instilling the skills and attributes expected of their graduates, with success in the labour market being the most obvious indicator of good outcomes. Given, however, that research training and more broadly, the provision of lifelong learning opportunities and skills upgrading are a significant aspect of the role played by the higher education sector in meeting Australia’s economic, social and cultural needs, another key indicator is the participation of graduates in further study. Tables 8 and 9 provide historical sector-wide data on graduate destinations and starting salaries while Table 10 compares the unemployment experience of graduates and non-graduates. The graduate unemployment rate, for example, is significantly lower than for non-graduates being, in May 1998, 3.1 per cent compared with 5.6 per cent for people with a skilled vocational qualification and eight per cent for the total labour force. The relatively low rates of unemployment and high wage rates shown in these tables indicate that Australian graduates possess skills in demand in the labour market. Table 8: Bachelor degree graduate destinations four months after graduation, 1987–1997
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Year | In full-time employment (%) |
Seeking
|
In full-time study (%) |
Other (%) |
Total (%) |
| 1987 | 60.3 |
8.0 |
19.4 |
12.3 |
100 |
| 1988 | 60.4 |
7.8 |
20.1 |
11.7 |
100 |
| 1989 | 61.0 |
5.8 |
18.5 |
14.7 |
100 |
| 1990 | 59.5 |
8.3 |
19.3 |
12.9 |
100 |
| 1991 | 50.8 |
15.3 |
23.2 |
10.7 |
100 |
| 1992 | 44.7 |
18.6 |
24.7 |
12.0 |
100 |
| 1993 | 44.1 |
17.9 |
24.5 |
13.5 |
100 |
| 1994 | 46.3 |
15.9 |
23.6 |
14.2 |
100 |
| 1995 | 49.8 |
13.3 |
21.6 |
15.3 |
100 |
| 1996 | 55.4 |
13.3 |
20.0 |
11.3 |
100 |