Content
Unsettled Times
4 June 2005
For a country with such a small, dispersed population, with
fewer resources for its universities than leading OECD countries,
Australia has for years had an enviable reputation for quality,
value and increasing diversity, despite the funding.
In the last ten years universities have engaged in a variety of
commercial ventures and fund-raising campaigns to counter the lack
of public funding and this strategy has mostly been sound.
A recent series of articles, however, in the Sydney Morning
Herald have highlighted how quality may have been compromised, and
some outlying 'teaching-only' campuses are not really providing a
genuine university experience.
There is now evidence that these criticisms, warranted or not,
are being circulated to Asian, European and American countries
which are source areas for many international students. Some
potential students are now questioning Australia's claim to
quality.
The sustained period of under-funding has created difficulties
that are now becoming evident.
It is no wonder, therefore, that there is so much speculation
and concern at present over the huge number of reforms initiated by
the Federal Government. People want to know whether there will be
greater financial stability, or whether there will be new
difficulties created for all but the most privileged universities
in an increasingly stratified sector.
A year ago many vice-chancellors were excited by new funding and
the prospect of new opportunities. Now there is some confusion
about what the future holds as the very public scrutiny of
universities raises questions about whether we are 'world-class',
competitive, diverse, governed correctly, managed efficiently,
appropriately audited for quality, and whether staff performance is
scrutinised closely enough.
Some claim that such extensive public scrutiny is damaging,
others believe it is transformational and overdue.
Whilst it is easy to see that there is currently unsettledness
on a significant scale, it is not as easy to see whether this
period will damage Australian higher education or improve it.
Costs for administration and red-tape have increased recently,
proper indexation has been denied, IR reforms have irritated many
staff, students believe they are paying too much for their
education and VSU will add to costs.
Yet universities are places that rely on the goodwill of staff
in particular, to counter the fact that they are always places that
exist in a state of unstable equilibrium. Gradualism has tended to
be more effective, but now transformational change is afoot, and
few can accurately predict the consequences.
Further complicating the context of higher education and what
funding regime will prevail for public universities, is the
sponsorship being provided to new national and international
private universities.
Carnegie-Mellon University is a very wealthy US university -
much wealthier than its Australian counterparts. It has been
provided with $20 million of public money to encourage its
establishment in Adelaide, where there are already a range of
Australian public universities that could have used that money.
Arguably, if Carnegie-Mellon is so interested in the market
possibilities in Australia, it should invest its own funds in the
same ways Australian universities do when they venture
overseas.
No university in this country welcomes change and challenges
more than USC, but the discussions underway in Canberra at present
will significantly influence the scale of the changes and
challenges.
As an engaged new generation university, we want a 'fair go' to
compete, and we don't want obstacles placed in our way to engage in
vital teaching, research and community outreach activities.
Professor Paul Thomas is Vice-Chancellor of University of
the Sunshine Coast