Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Nothing to Fear From Reform

By Andrew Norton - posted Tuesday, 15 February 2000

One ironic feature of the higher education debate is that clear thinking, the very thing universities ought to be instilling in their students, is hard to find.

Dr Kemp’s plans to reform the higher education system, leaked by the Opposition last October and subsequently dumped by Cabinet, were the subject of hysterical and ill-informed protest.

What Dr Kemp proposed was letting government subsidies follow the student with universities being given the power to charge top-up fees, and students able to defer the cost through income-contingent loans.


We’d expect that student groups such as the National Union of Students, who still think the general taxpayer should fund the huge investment in their future earning potential that is higher education, would be opposed to this measure.

But we would expect better of serious commentators. Unfortunately, these expectations, with a couple of exceptions, are likely to be disappointed. A case in point was Gavin Moodie’s regular column in The Australian of 26 January.

Moodie launched an attack on small private providers of higher education, who generally support Dr Kemp’s proposal, claiming that their position would lead to bad education, social policy, economics and politics.

Moodie’s belief that this change would be bad for education rests on the claim that most of those lobbying for change are small institutions, which do not offer a range of courses and cannot achieve economies of scale to support high quality teaching and learning.

It is true that many private institutions are small and don’t offer a large range of courses, but this is irrelevant as most aim to fill small niches in the educational market. Many of the colleges in question are religious, and offer a kind of education simply not available elsewhere. To satisfy diverse student demand what is needed is system-wide range, not necessarily range within one institution.

Size does not seem critical to achieving good outcomes for students. Avondale College is an example. It has around 600 students, about a third of which are currently eligible for subsidised places (Avondale is among those campaigning for change, to eliminate this inconsistency). According to The Good Universities Guide, Avondale receives its top five star rating in graduate assessment of their courses, staff-student ratios, getting a job and starting salaries.


Take by contrast a much larger institution, Victoria University of Technology, where Mr Moodie works. It has around 17,000 students. It gets four stars for graduate assessment of their courses, three stars for staff-student ratios, and only one star each for getting jobs and starting salaries. There are reasons for VUT’s poor performance, but this contrast highlights that size neither guarantees nor is necessary for good performance.

Moodie’s bad social policy argument relies on the view that if universities were able to set their own fees on top of the public subsidy this would disadvantage people from low socio-economic backgrounds, because they are more averse than wealthy people to incurring high levels of debt for higher education.

It isn’t clear that this debt aversion is a major problem. The introduction of higher HECS rates from 1997 has not had an obvious effect on the socio-economic composition of the universities. The proportion of low SES young people studying courses in courses allocated to the most expensive band actually increased in 1997 despite a large price increase, before dropping in 1998 to a point 0.1% below the 1996 level. These appear to be normal fluctuations, with a price of more than $5,000 a year having no effect on behaviour.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Andrew Norton is a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies and Director of the CIS' Liberalising Learning research programme.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Andrew Norton
Related Links
The Centre for Independent Studies
Photo of Andrew Norton
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy