University vice-chancellors are marshalling their arguments against looming cuts to funding in the lead-up to the August Budget. Some of the arguments have merit; but others would not pass muster in a first-year logic exam.
The vice-chancellors are arguing on many fronts. They say education and research are important for the long-term future of the nation. That is true, but there are questions of quality and quantity. The vice-chancellors argue that cuts in funding will result in a reduction in the number of places. Well, that may not be such a bad thing. Perhaps too many students are going to university with the result that standards are falling or the range of subjects is far to broad. Certainly the number of students has ballooned in the past 10 years. It may be that a lot of the subjects taught at some universities would be better taught on the job, though that assumes an improving economy that provides the job. The government would argue that without significant public-sector cuts, there can be no economic improvement.
The so-called gang of eight elite universities have tentatively proposed that they should be treated better when it comes to research funding. There is merit in that argument, but it comes a little late. The administrations of these universities either acquiesced or allowed themselves to be bullied into the Dawkinisation of the universities with its entirely inappropriate amalgamations and conversions of colleges. Now the vice-chancellors of the gang of eight want to re-establish the “”real” universities. Of course, if there were a more objective, measurable standard across the universities, the divvying up of research funds would be that much easier and their case would be that much easier to make.
The vice-chancellors argue that universities are important in regional economies as major employers and consumers. Maybe so. But virtually any government spending anywhere will improve a regional economy against other regions without that spending, even if you pay people to dig holes and fill them in. The real test is whether the money is well-spent in national terms as against other forms of spending.
The vice-chancellors have argued that cutting funds will affect programs to attract international students and threaten Australian $2 billion international-student industry. The argument has to be put better than that. Many taxpayers might argue that if the international-student industry is indeed an industry it should run at a profit and not require government subsidies. If, however, it is a deliberate loss-leader for foreign policy objectives, fine. But let it be argued on that score.
The vice-chancellors argue that the universities have been put on triennial funding and that they have another year to go under present arrangements. Here they are on much more solid ground. Major organisations like universities, the CSIRO and the ABC should, as far as possible, be shielded from flavour-of-the-month policies. They should be able to get long-term funding arrangements that, by-and-large, transcend changes of government. In particular, the vice-chancellors are entitled to argue that with promises before the election to maintain funding, or at least no statement that the triennial funding was up for review, the government should be held to the present funding for another year.
After that, they will have to put their case for a further three-year arrangement. In doing that, some vice-chancellors will bemoan their failure to resist the more fatuous elements of the Dawkins reforms, in particular their trading of autonomy for direct Commonwealth funding. The payer of piper is still calling the tune, albeit a slightly different one since March 2.
The Gang of Eight have been circumspect in their call for separate status and better funding arrangements … to the extent that they would even deny they were doing it. More fool them. They should be more vigorous. They should pursue excellence and enforceable high standards. Moreover, the vice-chancellors in general should recognise that they are competing as much against each other for funding as competing against other callers at the government’s door.
Excellence in tertiary education in Australia is more important than shovelling numbers through degree courses whose subject matter often does not warrant the disciplinary approach of the university method.
If the government is to cut funding to tertiary education, it and the vice-chancellors must avoid salami slicing or across-the-board cuts. These apply the same cut to the best and the worst equally. Moreover, they are not very effective. It would be better to cut a few whole programs or courses and to maintain, or even increase, effort in the best areas.
The government must ensure that Australia’s position in the international research community is not further compromised. Corrosive across-the-board cuts are likely to do that. So, too, is the centralisation of research funding in the absence of criteria against which institutions can be measured against each other. This has resulted in a huge amount of useless work in dressing up applications for research money that detracts from effort into research itself. Unless the universities are de-Dawkinised and effort concentrated on excellence, Australia is in danger of not producing enough research output for the rest of the international research community to take us seriously enough to engage in important information exchanges.
The universities must focus their efforts and, in this climate, be fairly brutal about cutting away some of the courses and students that do not belong in a university.