Outstanding Success for USC in Learning-Teaching
27 August 2005
As there was always going to be fairly extensive media coverage
of the recent outcomes resulting in the national 'Learning and
Teaching Performance Fund' league table, I thought that I would
avoid writing a column on that subject. The coverage has, however,
been so poor that I thought I would clarify a few of the
University's views.
Our initial reaction was one of delight. We were placed in
mid-table amongst Australia's thirty-eight ranked universities.
This was an excellent result. In Queensland it was surpassed only
by the University of Queensland. From such a modest resource base
to be ahead of most Queensland universities was a major
achievement.
Our considered reaction is that the criteria, however adjusted,
don't entirely favour us. The criteria are supposed to gauge the
effectiveness of 'teaching and learning'. In so far as the criteria
measure graduate satisfaction issues, then they are close to the
mark. On such issues the Good Universities Guide has consistently
ranked USC in the foremost group in the country, and that judgement
is, I believe, reflective of the experience of many of our
undergraduates, and warranted.
But the national criteria go beyond 'satisfaction' ratings to
'graduate employment' and higher study options. These criteria are
only tenuously linked to 'teaching and learning' and much more
reflective of economic circumstances and higher degree
opportunities locally.
Many of our graduates, for example, choose to stay and find work
on the Coast. Those opportunities to secure full-time career roles
are too limited, and not even the world's best graduates would
necessarily be able to secure Coast employment within three or four
months of graduation. It is a situation on which we are working
concertedly, that is, to create more jobs, as well as producing
competent graduates.
But we have also said that this is a regional economic problem
and one in which businesses, Councils and governments have a role
to play, to generate more, quality jobs and career
opportunities.
In that the criteria dwelt at least in part on those latter
matters, I would contend that they do not bear directly on learning
and teaching necessarily. In the same vein, Brisbane universities,
for example, have many more higher degree openings than we are able
to offer at this stage, but that should hardly be held against us,
as we have not had access to public funding that would have allowed
us to expand those higher study options to the same extent.
The danger with league tables is that every vice-chancellor now
rushes to advance their case for higher placement, and some quite
extraordinary cases are emerging.
As is becoming obvious on so many fronts the oldest, largest
universities are becoming increasingly aggressive, some might say
greedy, and want to secure monies from every conceivable source
without full regard for the consequences of the national provision
of higher education across all regions, not just in some
cities.
To argue, for example, that the top universities attract the
best qualified students, who get good degrees and secure good jobs
is hardly surprising. The harder question is whether the majority
of the other universities actually do a better job with students
who are initially less well qualified. Dealing with this level of
complexity has meant that the national scores have justifiably been
'adjusted' for some particular circumstances. Not to adjust them
would simply mean that unjustifiably, the extra funding would again
go to the already best endowed universities. Whilst that might mean
that the cases for some universities aspiring to be world class
might be advanced more quickly, it would also threaten the
provision of public university education for the majority of
Australian students, denied access to a range of competitive
funding pools.
Professor Paul Thomas is Vice-Chancellor of University of
the Sunshine Coast