The discussion paper on higher education in Australia has resulted in a polarisation of views. On one hand, the Vice-Chancellors (broadly representing university management), students (the consumers) and staff have reacted by calling for more government money to be put into the sector. On the other hand, the Minister for Education, Brendan Nelson, has flatly rejected the idea until the universities come up with plans for change arising out of the review.
It is an unfortunate polarisation. In fact, both reform and more money are needed.
Going back to the 1980s, the Dawkins changes to the university system have been condemned for creating too many universities (perhaps as many as 25 of the 38 institutions) with too many courses not suited to academic discipline. That may be true, but whether they are called universities, colleges or technical schools, they serve a need in educating and training and need funding. Whatever the merit of the institutional changes, the Dawkins changes brought a potential source of that funding with the HECS system. It was a system of fees payable by students when they started earning the larger incomes that tertiary education invariably brought. It should have been the end to the universities’ funding woes. But it has not been because successive governments have put that money into consolidated revenue and barely given the universities credit for it. Instead universities have been continually squeezed and required to raise an increasing percentage of their revenue from other sources, particularly overseas students.
Continue reading “2002_05_may_leader01may unis”