BY VIV MILEY
Universities are lowering academic standards in order to pass a greater number of full fee-paying domestic and international students, the preliminary results of a new study of academic freedom has revealed.
The soon to be released study, Academic Freedom and Commercialisation of Australian Universities, conducted by Carole Kayrooz from the University of Canberra and Gerlese Akerlind from the Australian National University and funded by the Australia Institute, an independent think-tank, involved a questionnaire sent out to 1000 social science academics.
The results revealed cases where universities had discriminated in favour of fee-paying students and altered exam results.
The report also found that academics are becoming more and more demoralised by excessive workloads and reduced research time, which has created a series of unending pressures.
The findings come on top of a revelation by academic marker Ted Steele, printed in the Sydney Morning Herald on January 12, that he had been instructed by administrators at the University of Wollongong to increase the grades of full fee-paying honours students, including passing one whose honours paper was the worst he believed he'd ever seen. University of Wollongong vice-chancellor Gerald Sutton immediately denied the charge.
Labor senator Kim Carr opened the can of worms even further when he came forward with allegations of mark tampering and universities accepting bribes from students in return for favourable marks. He revealed one case in which it is alleged that more than $1 million was offered to a top university and where it appears marks were changed.
In response to the flurry of accusations, the executive director of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, Stuart Hamilton, said "Vice-chancellors are very concerned about allegations of discrimination in student marking on the basis of fee payment made in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald. Such statements, as yet unsupported by evidence, do damage to the reputation of the sector and to the integrity of Australian academics.
"It is a truism that Australia's academics are under unprecedented pressure due to increased workloads, however, we need to be very careful before suggesting that these same academics are being less than scrupulous in the performance of their duties."
Funding cuts
The National Tertiary Education Industry Union, which covers academics and general staff on Australian universities, has backed both the study's findings and the mark-tampering claims of academics.
"The union is hearing an increasing number of stories like those reported by the Australia Institute", NTEU president Carolyn Allport said. "Many staff are now being pressured to do whatever it takes to attract fee paying students."
"The need to fill the hole left by government funding cuts is the cause of the majority of examples cited to us by members. Time and again staff are asked to cut corners or turn a blind eye in order to generate the income that is needed to keep their course or department running."
Both the AVCC and federal education minister David Kemp were startled by the claims of corruption and both moved quickly to reassure students, especially overseas full-fee paying students, that there is no hard evidence as yet to back up the claims made by the Australia Institute and the NTEU.
A statement signed by Kemp and the Council of Australian University Presidents claimed that the government and university administrators had everything under control and that all complaints would be handled by the soon to be up and running Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA).
"The Australian Universities Quality Agency recently established by the government has a strong remit to assure the quality of university education, both in Australia and overseas," the statement claimed reassuringly.
The AUQA, however, has no official power to investigate the allegations made. The government's higher education report for the 2001-2003 triennium clearly states "The Agency will not have the responsibility for investigating complaints about institutions" — that responsibility lies with the universities themselves.
This has prompted the NTEU to demand protection for academics and university staff who expose mark tampering and corruption among universities.
"It's hard to obtain evidence of this nature because university staff on the one hand quite rightly fear reprisal if they make comments that are in any way seen to detract from the reputation of their institution," said the union's policy coordinator, Julie Wells. "They also fear that if they criticise their institution's practices in relation to fee-paying students in particular that they may kill the 'goose that laid the golden egg'."
If even part of all the allegations raised are true, it points to something very wrong with the way in which universities are being funded. All non-government organisations from the Australia Institute to the NTEU, and even the AVCC, have cited increasing cutbacks to government funding as the major source of all these problems.
Since the 1989 introduction of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) by the then Labor government, the government has shifted from providing free, accessible higher education towards placing the burden of paying for education onto the individual. Government funding has dropped precipitously.
Taking on ever greater numbers of full fee-paying students has become the most popular way of universities making up the shortfall — and creating a system extremely prone to rorting.
Most of the specific allegations of mark-tampering and bribery will probably be heard and dealt with by the AUQA's inquiry.
What won't be heard or dealt with is the need for a major public reinvestment in university education. More likely is that universities will be pushed to find new ways to fund themselves: through further corporation, increases in fees and numbers of fee-paying places and more creative avenues for rorting.