BY CLAUDIA QUINNELL
Once again, higher education has come under attack, this time through federal education minister Brendan Nelson's "Higher Education at the Crossroads" review. The review claims to take stock of how far the higher education sector has come since the introduction of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) 14 years ago, and to address the "challenges" facing Australian universities today.
The review examines difficulties facing academic and administrative staff, postgraduate research and funding for both public and private universities. The government hopes that legislation around these issues will be drafted from the review and voted in the parliamentary sitting early next year.
Many who have been to university in the last 14 years would probably agree that there are problems: universities are under funded, class sizes are too large and student support has decreased.
But the opinions of past and present university students were not solicited by the review. Very few people who have experience of tertiary education were consulted. Members of the review's reference group, which provided "guidance" on and "consideration" of submissions presented, came overwhelmingly from the business sector. There were no vice-chancellors from the smaller or newer universities. Most student organisations' submissions were ignored.
University funding
The review found that a lack of university funding was a big problem for students and for others in the community. However instead of proposing that government funding be increased, four alternate models of funding have been put forward. All four models increase the proportion of costs bourne by students.
The first is deregulation of university fees, which would allow tertiary institutions to charge what they want (or what the market "dictates") for a degree. Students could face paying $100,000 or more for a first degree.
The second proposal is to scale back HECS and replace it with a postgraduate education loans scheme. With interest rates like a bank loan, such a scheme would also require that students pay back more of the full cost of their degree. This could be equivalent to starting working life with a mortgage, but no house. Those with such a debt may not be eligible for further loans until the debt is paid.
The third model being discussed is "super HECS". Under super HECS, students studying more popular degrees would pay more HECS. The HECS rate would probably increase for all degrees.
The fourth option is to charge commercial interest rates for student loans, HECS or otherwise. This would penalise those who take longer to pay off their degree.
The review also proposes to scale back HECS-funded places at universities by abolishing the 25% limit of up-front-fee paying enrolments.
Implementing any of these proposals will force students into huge amounts of debt, and exclude some from the system altogether. The National University of Students West Australian president Daniel Butler told Green Left Weekly: "any system which increases the financial pressures on students reduces the likelihood of students seeking places at university. This will particularly affect students from lower socio-economic backgrounds."
The review states that "universities need to realise that they too are businesses". But at what cost do we transform public education into a corporate training ground? Raising the cost of education for students will penalise the poor, and may cause enrolments to fall, and thus a drop in the proportion of tertiary educated workers and further reduce the money spent on higher education.
Postgraduate study
The Nelson review emphasises that more than a fifth of units offered in Australian universities have enrolment numbers of five or less. Many units offered in a post-graduate course will invariably have few students, however. The review's method of calculating class sizes was also flawed, failing to take account that different unit codes can be assigned to subjects taught within one class (e.g. to differentiate between internal and external student, or student at different year-levels). The review implies support for the abolition of smaller classes.
Nelson evidently believes that it is unnecessary for more than one university in a state to offer the same course: the review recommends universities specialise in "niche" areas. This denies students the choice that different universities different approach to the same area offers. As universities become more specialised, students also have less choice of research topics, leading to a homogenisation of research.
In 1988, many tertiary institutes won a share of advanced research funding. As a result, the difference in status between institutes and universities of technology, teaching colleges and "sandstone" universities reduced, giving more students access to a university. The Nelson review, however, advocates rolling back these gains by making universities compete more aggressively corporate research funding.
This is supposed to "foster excellence" within universities, but in reality it narrows research, and emphasises corporate needs over basic or humanitarian research.
Although no university — and certainly no student — will be better off if any of Nelson review is implemented, some universities are likely to be less adversely affected then others.
Sandstone universities like Melbourne University and Sydney University can attract higher enrolments, and therefore more funds, through their superior resources, high profile academics and "status". Universities with a heavy industry focus, such as RMIT and Curtin are also likely to attract high levels of industry sponsorship. Meanwhile, newer universities like Southern Cross University and the University of Western Sydney are likely to flounder.
University staff
Academics and administrative staff will suffer if recommendations in the Nelson review become legislation. The review stresses the need for "flexibility" in the workplace, so universities will be able to "compete in the education market". Behind such double-speak lies an attempt to cut pay and conditions and curtail union power.
Already, funding cuts and staff reductions in Australian universities have increased staff workloads. Non-academic staff, who have seen their numbers slashed by over 13% since 1994, have had to cope with increased student enrolments.
Academic salaries have been declining since the early 1980s, which has made it difficult for Australian universities to employ high profile academics, unless they fund extra salaries out of other revenue. The review is keen to blame militant union tactics such as pattern bargaining for this, saying "Pattern bargaining is counter productive when it results in pay increases that universities cannot afford."
The review also recommends favouring nine-month contracts over permanent positions, costing academics job security and pay during the long university teaching break.
Fighting crossroads
If the recommendations in the Nelson review are implemented, many students will be burdened with a debt it will take a lifetime to pay off, fewer students will be able to afford tertiary education at all, education quality and access will differ dramatically between universities, with regional institutions on the bottom of the heap, many of academics will be seek tenure elsewhere and universities will become even more unpleasant working environments.
Higher education is in dire need of a review that will offer real solutions to the crisis facing universities. Universities have been bled of funds for too long and the cracks are beginning to show.
Protests of students and university staff have occurred all around the country in opposition to the recommendations made in this review, with more than 600 rallying at Sydney University in August. Protesters are calling for more student and staff participation in the review and a redirection of public funds into the tertiary education.
Students, staff and others must demand a strong university system: which encourages equity, a high class of education delivered by well-paid staff and the freedom of choice in courses, not one that serves the needs of a wealthy elite.
From Green Left Weekly, September 4, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.