Musings on the Accord’s Interim Report
Does it matter if the Accord changes the way that Australian universities are run?
My immediate reaction to the Interim Report of the Universities Accord process was to highlight the issue, as I saw it on first reading, of a switch in the way government thinks about running the sector. As I told the Australian Financial Review,
The report marks a pendulum swing from a market system to one of increasing state control. The report has many examples where our current universities don’t seem to have the confidence of this government. In governance, leadership and operations, the implication is that universities have failed to meet expectations. And the answer seems to be tighter control of the inputs in universities rather than policymaking focused on working towards outcomes.
Andrew Norton has a similar reaction, concluding:
I find myself in deep disagreement with the Accord interim report – about the nature of higher education, about the proper relationship between the state and universities, about whether people can reasonably aspire to lives other than those approved by Canberra technocrats, about the plausibility of long-term targets, about the ethics of enrolling the under-prepared students needed to reach those targets, and about where the knowledge and judgment needed for a good higher education system resides.
Moving on from an initial ‘what?’ in the Interim Report to reflecting on the ‘so what?’, I think we need to ask what it means to have a more state-controlled higher education system in, and for, Australia. Here are some of the initial thoughts on the relative merits of the approaches as I see them (noting of course that the report is only the interim output, and that there remains only a modest chance of a major reform package being seen through).
This house believes that universities should be state controlled
The quasi-market in HE has been a success for some universities but not all. In Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, we have a good mix of institutions each differentiated from the next, and broadly able to make their ways independently because those cities attract the lion’s share of international students. But outside those cities, and particularly in regional areas, making a go of a broad-based university is hard. It’s harder to recruit and retain students, harder to attracted talented staff, harder to find the investment dollars for capital. A planned system can correct this imbalance better sustaining institutions wherever they need to be.
Universities have not done enough (or have not demonstrated that they are doing enough) to maintain academic standards, to provide a consistently good student experience, to provide equality of opportunity through widening participation for the least advantaged groups in society, to be good workplaces where everyone is paid fairly for work done, to deliver research and impact which is in the national interest, to work effectively with industry partners for education and research, to be creative in developing more flexible learning models. The list might go on. Government, having observed a failing system, should step in and impose agendas which focus inputs more directly in pursuit of good outcomes.
Universities are so important to the national interest that they can’t be left alone. We need so many more graduates to fill current and future skills gaps, and we need research to build sovereign capability. These institutions will only increase in importance and, just as we don’t let schools be a complete free-for-all, we should direct their efforts in ways which give us more confidence that they will meet the national interest.
They are economically inefficient and central planning of resources will deliver better outcomes within a limited resource envelope.
This house likes the status quo
The quasi-market in HE has been a success for some universities. We should celebrate and recognise the fact that it is the entrepreneurial spirit of our universities which has made our institutions credible on the world stage. The success in key cities attracts talent to Australia and the recruitment of international students fuels a massive investment in research effort for public benefit. The answer is not to upend the whole system for the sake of those institutions which have found the market tough but to have targeted redistribution mechanisms to ensure that each institution can be sustainable. Make minor course corrections, don’t turn the tanker around.
Universities are doing a great job and have expanded whenever given the chance to meet student demand. Competition between institutions pushes the creation of new courses and new models of delivery (albeit within somewhat limited bounds). Graduates get jobs which is a better measure of impact than satisfaction. If the government has issue with any element of the way universities work, that can be tackled individually to promote better outcomes.
Universities are already tightly regulated and work in the national interest meeting their missions as outlined in founding legislation. They are public-purpose non-profits seeking always to do more, and better. Making the university-industry nexus work well isn’t only achieved by bashing universities but requires a broader societal shift and changed incentives.
The best research is not dictated from the top. The inefficiency of universities is required to allow for the potential of new discoveries. The pursuit of efficiency for its own sake is unlikely to deliver material benefits.
I genuinely don’t mind how the overarching system is designed. In any case, the task – at a system level and within institutions – is to try and deliver as high quality an education as possible, to do as much research at the highest possible quality, and to create positive impacts in communities. Changing the rules doesn’t change the target outcomes.
While transition between systems/approaches might be hard for some, people will adapt. And at some point in the future, with a new government, the pendulum will swing again.
What’s the so what?
Let’s have a debate about the pros and cons of different ways of governing HE to understand whether what’s proposed is likely to deliver the benefits claimed (or any benefits at all). As I’ve said before, I think we should start with being honest about the problem(s) that we’re trying to solve. There’s a lot to like about the Universities Accord process and Interim Report but, without a full articulation of the problem to solve, I worry that its solutions may create more heat than light.