Opinion & Commentary
Central control dilutes quality
The recent Senate report, Universities in Crisis, declared that our universities are experiencing an ‘unmistakable deterioration in quality standards’. It is a common view, and we hear regularly about its causes - overcrowded classrooms, under-resourced libraries, and more students than ever for each academic to teach.
The solution – championed by everyone from left-wing unions to Rupert Murdoch – is more public investment.
More spending could increase quality. But before we open our wallets, we should consider some surprising survey results.
Since the early 1990s, all students completing degrees have been sent a survey called the Course Experience Questionnaire. The CEQ asks questions about the student’s university experience, including teaching quality.
Consistent with the pessimistic view of Australia’s universities, the results are at best mediocre. In the latest survey, on the half dozen questions about teacher effort, half to two-thirds of completing students, depending on the question, thought aspects of academics’ efforts were of a middling or poor quality.
In itself, this is a bad result. The explanation, however, cannot be funding cuts, since CEQ results have been trending up, not down, since the mid-1990s. Despite having less money to spend per student, universities are doing a better job in the eyes of their graduating students.
Other surveys also suggest things aren’t as bad as they seem. A recent newspaper poll found that only a quarter in any age group thought university students were not as well trained as in the past, and those most likely to think things were better – 40% of them - were people with the most first-hand knowledge, those aged 18 to 24.
It seems like a paradox. The less we spend, the better it gets.
In fact this isn’t a paradox. What it shows is that funding levels are only one relevant factor. We have to look also at the pressures to spend money effectively.
Despite funding constraints, universities are extraordinarily sheltered. The government funds fewer student places than there are prospective students, making undergraduate education a seller’s market. Place allocation by quota further restricts student choice.
You don’t need to be Allan Fels to work out what kind of attitude this encourages. If your customers have nowhere else to go, they are not a high priority.
A survey of academics carried out in 1994 frankly shows the problem. It asked what factors were taken into account when they went for promotion. The quantity of research and publication came top of the list, with 85% saying it mattered ‘to a large extent a great deal’. By contrast, only 22% thought the quality of undergraduate learning mattered. If you were an ambitious academic, which would you focus on?
A similar survey conducted in 1999 showed considerable improvement. While research was, if anything, more important, with 91% saying it mattered in promotion, the 44% stating that their effectiveness as a teacher mattered was a 100% increase on 1994, even if it is still a minority view. These extra academics looking at their teaching performance must be good for the CEQ results.
Indirectly, the universities funding woes may be improving teaching standards, not because poverty helps in itself, but because it pushes universities into the market. In their quest for more money, universities have turned to recruiting overseas students, with overseas enrolments rising from around 30,000 in 1991 to 95,000 last year.
Overseas students benefit local students not just through cultural exchange, but by making universities more student-oriented. Overseas students exist outside the government’s quota system. No university can assume that they will attract overseas enrolments. They have to show that their university is, in fact, worth attending. With money dependent on performance, universities have at least partially re-assessed their approach to undergraduate students. Their modest success so far is showing in the CEQ results.
Encouraging as this improvement is, fee-paying students are less than a quarter of all enrolments. The vast majority of students remain within the old centrally-controlled system that gives them little power.
The solution is to end the current quota system. The government should assist everyone who gains admission, at least with a loan, rather than keeping numbers artificially low. Government should assist students attending any accredited higher education institution, public or private, rather than arbitrarily restricting choice to the public universities and a few private institutions. Nobody’s numbers should be guaranteed; students should be earned rather than allocated.
More money is part of the solution for universities, because there are problems spending can fix. But unless we fix the incentive structures first, there is no guarantee that money will be spent in ways that seriously improve the quality of university education.
About the Author:
Andrew Norton is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies and former senior adviser to Education Minister David Kemp.
