Dr Brendan Nelson's university policy prescription: panacea, placebo or poison? Day 1

Regards,
Andrew

From: Carolyn Allport
To: Andrew Norton
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Put students in control

Dear Andrew,

The fact that we may agree on some of the problems that now arise with the Government's plans for our universities underlines the importance of achieving balance in the policy instruments, including the market, that universities use to manage what are very large, very important, and increasingly global education institutions.

It is true that one of the consequences, perhaps unforseen, of the government's legislation has been the increased level of bureaucratic interference. This is important at a general level, given the centrality of institutional autonomy in the very definition of universities. It is also important because universities are not "agencies of the state", and receive increasing amounts of their income from sources outside Federal Government grants. A trend that you have welcomed.

What is most worrying, is that the interventions proposed by the Government in the legislation transverses almost all areas of university activity, and impacts on students, as well as staff. It also impacts on the roles universities play within their varying communities - communities that may extend beyond the immediate environs of university campuses. Most university systems in the world accept that government, as a primary funding source for universities, should have a "steering role", setting broad parameters. In the research area here in Australia, Government sets national priorities. In the package currently before our national parliament, it is proposed to quarantine students in national priority areas of teaching and nurse education from any increased fees. Steering, even in your favoured market based system, can generally be an attempt to meet the needs of the many people who both participate and benefit by higher education outcomes.

Perhaps the key to understanding the current proposals is to recognise that they contain an array of contradictory policy measures, developed unfortunately with little thought for the impact on universities themselves, their students and their staff. Some of these same contradictions are contained in your own comments. On the one hand, you argue that university councils, student unions and our bargaining approach are worthy of bureaucratic interference - in your view they are real problems. Why are they real problems, and why can't universities deal with them without outside interference?

Universities are educational institutions first and foremost, irrespective of how they are funded. They are not and should not be run as businesses. Efficiency, effectiveness and accountability within institutions is important, but universities do not produce undifferentiated widgets - one hopes we are actually promote critical thinking, adaptability, and the passion to create new knowledge. As part of this process, we also educate men and women for our professions. On the other hand, it has been a long time since universities actually lived in "ivory towers", and people who study and work in our universities do hold civic rights and responsibilities under our Federal and State laws. I do agree with you that excessive bureaucratic interference is now coming to be one of the critical issues in the legislation, and an increasing number of Vice-Chancellors are starting to think, "they might have been sold a pup".

The legislation's central agenda however is to shift our universities towards a more market based identity. How can we continue to increase student fees? Are there not considerable economic as well as social costs that will arise in the future from student debt levels that are increasing at a faster rate even now? You would argue, no doubt, that the market is more responsive to choice, and that students would be the major beneficiaries of the system. Could I put to you that I do not believe that we can, and should, see education only through the lens of the market. I say this precisely because the market privileges simple economic arguments, without understanding that social and cultural aspects actually do have both an economic cost and an economic price. We see every day the costs of societies that lack social cohesion, the price paid for people being excluded from the benefits of society simply because they, as individuals, cannot afford the price of education. And this is a cost that our society bears as whole. In this area, the market must be fettered, and we must balance education pricing with strong equity considerations.

Universities are complex organisations, and if we are to sustain creativity and critical thinking, we must live through imperfections. Any new government reforms have the primary duty to enhance, not restrict, the capacity of universities to do just that. And the voices of staff and students must play an important part in the ways that their universities construct their response to the current proposed changes.

Regards,
Carolyn

Reader Poll: What do you think? Vote on the issue and make your view count, click here. (As you would expect from OLO this is not a "quickie" online poll. Your views will be properly analysed and represented).

Day 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 .