Building University Diversity
30 April 2005
Within the last week universities have responded to the first of
a number of issues papers released by the Federal Government, which
is the level of government responsible for the funding of
universities.
The theme of the issues paper is 'Building University
Diversity', and it raises questions about 'what is a university?',
'can there be different types of universities, such as
teaching-only?, 'how should universities be accredited?', as well
as a range of other important discussion points.
The paper has been prompted by a need to ensure that Australia's
university sector is of the highest quality, and is internationally
competitive enough to survive and prosper in an emerging world of
free trade, including the trade of education.
The university sector is currently developed within a framework
provided by five national protocols, that specify what institutions
can use the word 'university', the criteria which overseas
universities need to meet to be recognised in Australia, the
accreditation procedures for courses, and how partnerships and
overseas students are dealt with. There are clear signals that the
Protocols will likely be changed to, for example, increase the
number and range of 'universities'.
Not surprisingly, existing universities have reacted in ways
that predominantly reflect their own interests. The leaders of the
most powerful institutions invariably get the greatest media
coverage and a recurring theme with them has been that they want to
continue to secure the lion's share of the funding for research and
be 'research intensive'.
To further their case they cite US and UK models and some
suggest the imposition of a hierarchy of universities to protect
their high-level interests.
The response from USC states that we will not as a Nation
acquire 'diversity' by borrowing irrelevant models from the UK and
US, where there are different cultures, different histories and
different populations in both overall size and distribution.
If there were now, a division created between types of
universities, it would be grossly inequitable and in the longer
term, unsustainable. If the newer generation universities were seen
as lesser than their sandstone counterparts, there would be a
public outcry of opposition. It would be akin, if it had been done
in the 1970s, to saying University of New South Wales, Monash and
Queensland University of Technology could not develop into quality
universities. In fact, they have achieved that status, in the same
way that newer generation universities are now forging powerful and
distinctive futures. The last thing the latter group needs is the
imposition of an hierarchy that will impede their progress or deny
them access to funding.
Australia needs to be very cautious about its relatively small
size in the world, protecting the current reputation it possesses
for quality that ranks it as third most attractive destination for
overseas students The dispersed nature of the country's population,
and the existence of high-growth regions like the Sunshine Coast
where populations increasingly demand the highest quality research,
teaching and engagement activities from their local universities
demand an imaginative response.
The last thing the great majority of the Australian population
and prospective students want is a further concentration of
privilege in major capital cities. If this Nation still prides
itself in a 'fair-go' then the potential of regional universities
like ours needs to be supported as it diversifies, and that will
serve the region far more than relying on broadening or stratifying
the sector to obtain diversity. In that way, within fifty years,
USC will be the new generation University of New South Wales in
status or a Wollongong as a regional leader.
Professor Paul Thomas is Vice-Chancellor of University of
the Sunshine Coast