Dr Brendan Nelson's university policy prescription: panacea, placebo or poison? Day 4

The workplace relations requirements are, unfortunately, symptomatic of the Canberra-knows-best philosophy that pervades the new legislation. But Canberra can't know best because at most it can second guess those who do. It is more likely to add error than insight. The Department of Education, Science and Training is a big enough obstacle to the good management of Australian higher education as it is. We should be reducing, not expanding, its role.

Regards,
Andrew

Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 2:55 PM
To: Andrew Norton
Subject: Re: Winding up

Dear Andrew

My apologies for not being as timely in my reply to your letters. A combination of IT issues in our office, and my own work demands this week have meant a short delay.

I have enjoyed exchanging our views. One of the interesting outcomes of that exchange in the context of the "other" debate in the press on workplace relations is that we both remain committed to the notion of institutional autonomy for universities. I welcome your concerns about the efficacy of the proposed workplace requirements, and I note that Tony Abbott has been moved from Industrial Relations to the Health portfolio.

I suppose that you would read institutional autonomy to also mean that universities must be in charge of their own fate, and not be dependant upon government for funding. I would disagree on this version of institutional autonomy because even the ivy league institutions in the United States receive public funding, and most universities in the developed world are to a greater or lesser extent also in receipt of government funding. Where there are totally private universities - in Australia at Bond and Notre Dame - each has ultimately come to the government for funding and both are now in the relevant funding schedules of the current Act.

Elsewhere in the world, the problem for private universities has been their inability to raise through tuition fees and commercial income enough money to pay staff comparable salaries to the public sector, and to provide the degree of job security so necessary to ensure that staff, whether employed in a public or private university, are able to exercise academic freedom and maintain quality.

I do agree that we need to build into our funding regimes, however constructed, more resources devoted to student learning. You would argue that the consumer sovereignty that attaches to the market would empower students to demand such resources, and that a voucher system would ensure that they would exercise that power. From my point of view, I believe we should start with the wider debate around learning, the needs of learners, and the critical importance of learning support services. The quid pro for expanding participation is to lift student performance. There is little in the way of statistical analysis that proves that performance in the final year of school studies is a predictor of success at university - except perhaps at the extremes. I remain confident that we can, and should, make sure that students are able to study in the areas of their choice. To assume that the only policy mechanism that is available to universities is the option of full fees, is to limit our capacity to redesign the way we work to meet student demand. Like you, I agree that Canberra bureaucrats can excessively over-regulate, and this often is not conducive to good practice on the part of universities.

Marks at secondary school themselves should never be the sole entry criterion. In some degree programs, such as medicine, entry is based also on interviews with prospective students. The University of Newcastle medical studies program has been a leader in this new area, and has been one of the few consistently graduating Indigenous health professionals. Perhaps, we need to send a wider message, not just the market message of marks equals money in the long term.

Regards,
Carolyn

Day 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 .