GoodToGo
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 1,144
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Op-ed in the Herald by our VC. The usual egalitarian/libertarian spiel. Couldn't agree more about overhauling the 2-tiered system...
-------
From Soviet class to world class
STEVEN SCHWARTZ
May 10, 2007
Australian higher education is the very model of a nationalised industry. University buildings are falling down, much of our equipment is obsolete and our staff are demoralised and cynical. As in the old Soviet Union, university resources are allocated by bureaucrats rather than price and institutions are fined for "overproduction" (enrolling too many students).
But a new day has dawned. The buildings, equipment and staff morale haven't changed overnight but, for the first time in many years, there is hope.
The $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund will help universities fund much-needed capital works projects, thus providing campuses with new buildings and equipment that will make learning richer and help academics with their research and teaching. More money for teaching and research is also very welcome and it seems "over-production" will now be sanctioned rather than punished.
However, there are several holdovers from the old Soviet system. Most resources, including the earnings of the new endowment fund, will be allocated by bureaucrats rather than the market and universities will be given limited scope to vary the fees for HECS students. These are probably too hard to tackle in an election year.
On the other hand, when it comes to full-fee students, the Government has decided to allow the chilly winds of the market to howl. Provided they fill their HECS places first, universities can charge what they like to as many students as they like.
Removing the cap on full-fee paying places will increase student choice and flexibility, creating - in Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop's words - a more "demand-driven university system". It also allows universities to use their spare capacity efficiently.
However, having two fee regimes is not exactly an optimum social policy.
Imagine two students. One attends a well-resourced private school and receives after-school coaching. The other studies at a poorly resourced rural school and spends her after-school hours helping her widowed mum to make ends meet. The first student gets a tertiary entrance score half a point higher than the second and is admitted to her preferred course in a HECS-subsidised place. The second student misses out and accepts a full-fee place in the same course. The wealthier candidate ends up paying a lower price.
This is an odd outcome because it is not obvious that the wealthy student would perform better at university. A less mechanical admissions system, one that considered a student's background, may have concluded that an economically deprived applicant, who manages to achieve an entry score only half a point lower than a student who had all the advantages, may actually perform better at university.
The system of subsidising some students while making others pay full fees is inefficient. The dropout rate for students in many government-subsidised courses is higher than the dropout rate for courses enrolling high numbers of full-fee students. If Government subsidies aim to maximise the number of graduates, then the current system produces perverse outcomes.
The equity and efficiency problems could be overcome by making all students HECS-subsidised. The best way to do this is to allow funding to follow students and to end all price controls. We should make a subsidy available to anyone accepted by a recognised university and allow universities to charge what they wish on top of this (repayable through the tax system).
The Government's figures show that Australian full-fee students make up only 2 per cent of the total. It will not cost much to add subsidies for these students. Also, according to the Government, there is no longer any "unmet demand" so great numbers of new students are unlikely to appear.
Universities will be free to determine how many students they will teach when funding follows students and prices are deregulated. Some will opt for high price and restricted access. Others will go for a low price and a high volume of students.
Our leading universities will compete with the best in the world. Other universities will offer a low-cost, no-frills, mainly vocational, education. Some universities will teach at nights and weekends while others will take learning to the workplace. Competition for students, who will control the purse strings, will produce better student services. By eliminating the two-class funding system, we will preserve and reinforce our reputation as socially responsible and ethical institutions.
Stephen Schwartz is the Vice-Chancellor of Macquarie University.
-------
From Soviet class to world class
STEVEN SCHWARTZ
May 10, 2007
Australian higher education is the very model of a nationalised industry. University buildings are falling down, much of our equipment is obsolete and our staff are demoralised and cynical. As in the old Soviet Union, university resources are allocated by bureaucrats rather than price and institutions are fined for "overproduction" (enrolling too many students).
But a new day has dawned. The buildings, equipment and staff morale haven't changed overnight but, for the first time in many years, there is hope.
The $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund will help universities fund much-needed capital works projects, thus providing campuses with new buildings and equipment that will make learning richer and help academics with their research and teaching. More money for teaching and research is also very welcome and it seems "over-production" will now be sanctioned rather than punished.
However, there are several holdovers from the old Soviet system. Most resources, including the earnings of the new endowment fund, will be allocated by bureaucrats rather than the market and universities will be given limited scope to vary the fees for HECS students. These are probably too hard to tackle in an election year.
On the other hand, when it comes to full-fee students, the Government has decided to allow the chilly winds of the market to howl. Provided they fill their HECS places first, universities can charge what they like to as many students as they like.
Removing the cap on full-fee paying places will increase student choice and flexibility, creating - in Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop's words - a more "demand-driven university system". It also allows universities to use their spare capacity efficiently.
However, having two fee regimes is not exactly an optimum social policy.
Imagine two students. One attends a well-resourced private school and receives after-school coaching. The other studies at a poorly resourced rural school and spends her after-school hours helping her widowed mum to make ends meet. The first student gets a tertiary entrance score half a point higher than the second and is admitted to her preferred course in a HECS-subsidised place. The second student misses out and accepts a full-fee place in the same course. The wealthier candidate ends up paying a lower price.
This is an odd outcome because it is not obvious that the wealthy student would perform better at university. A less mechanical admissions system, one that considered a student's background, may have concluded that an economically deprived applicant, who manages to achieve an entry score only half a point lower than a student who had all the advantages, may actually perform better at university.
The system of subsidising some students while making others pay full fees is inefficient. The dropout rate for students in many government-subsidised courses is higher than the dropout rate for courses enrolling high numbers of full-fee students. If Government subsidies aim to maximise the number of graduates, then the current system produces perverse outcomes.
The equity and efficiency problems could be overcome by making all students HECS-subsidised. The best way to do this is to allow funding to follow students and to end all price controls. We should make a subsidy available to anyone accepted by a recognised university and allow universities to charge what they wish on top of this (repayable through the tax system).
The Government's figures show that Australian full-fee students make up only 2 per cent of the total. It will not cost much to add subsidies for these students. Also, according to the Government, there is no longer any "unmet demand" so great numbers of new students are unlikely to appear.
Universities will be free to determine how many students they will teach when funding follows students and prices are deregulated. Some will opt for high price and restricted access. Others will go for a low price and a high volume of students.
Our leading universities will compete with the best in the world. Other universities will offer a low-cost, no-frills, mainly vocational, education. Some universities will teach at nights and weekends while others will take learning to the workplace. Competition for students, who will control the purse strings, will produce better student services. By eliminating the two-class funding system, we will preserve and reinforce our reputation as socially responsible and ethical institutions.
Stephen Schwartz is the Vice-Chancellor of Macquarie University.
