Every now and then I’m in a meeting and someone looks at me, recognises that I’m a scientist, and cheerfully proclaims “Merlin will be pleased, because today we’re taking a scientific approach”. I tune in, but sometimes my heart sinks because what actually happens is management sheltering behind pseudoscience.
It’s even worse when people take a “mathematical approach”. Again the idea is to be rational and impartial, but the application of mathematical formulae to human systems is thwart with danger.
I think these examples will convince you.
First, consider the issue of the day – international student caps. It will surprise you to learn that I’m not actually opposed to the gradual and careful introduction of caps, but I am completely opposed to the use of the first formula the Department came up with.
And I’m not alone. Speaking to the Senate enquiry, George Williams, the VC of WSU, and someone with a powerful intellect, said ”The formula was a shock, it was not what we expected. I read it twice, thinking I had misread.”
If you look up the formula you will laugh.
But I don’t even mind that. I believe we sometimes have to start with complex formulae and models, and then sense check them.
The Department is committed to consultation, so there is still time.
Here’s my problem with the formula. It doesn’t use student numbers in 2024 as an input. Instead it considers 2019 to 2023.
Why?
Because the 2024 student numbers were not available when the formula was first being developed. So, it was reasonable to start with what was available.
But now it is time to revise the plan and include 2024 numbers and redo the caps.
Why is this such a very big deal?
It’s because some new providers didn’t have students in 2023 so got no places, even though they have students and staff in 2024. Unless revisions are made, these jobs are at risk.
Other providers grew in 2024, again hiring staff, and they’ll need those staff to teach as the students move into second year.
I repeat that I have always accepted that we can’t grow and grow indefinitely at current rates, so easing in caps carefully makes sense. I’m just opposed to using a formula based on 2019-2023 that excludes the most important year – 2024 – because existing staff positions matter.
If we are to stabilise or shrink, let’s land gently. Let’s look after staff and the students they are teaching.
I’m also worried about long term research projects that will be compromised if dropped abruptly.
Again, a gradual slowdown will allow alternative funding to be negotiated for the most important research projects and infrastructure.
So I’m hoping that the best minds in Government and the Department will now consider the 2024 numbers and allow flexibility for 2025. We need time to adjust.
The alternative is to take the “computer says no” or “robodebt” approach. To rely on pseudoscience and hide behind it, being fearful of adjusting because compromise might look like weakness. I think our public servants and leaders are better than that, but we’ll soon find out.
This problem with pseudoscience is going to get bigger in the age of Artificial Intelligence. We stand at a crossroads. We can sleepwalk into relying on systems like, mandatory sentencing, robodebt, and using the first draft capping formula, or do what good managers who mentored me try to do – start with the numbers, but never let them be the last word.
This is what I do when using Wikipedia or ChatGPT. I see what the computer says, then I sense check. In management, I try to sense check with people who will be affected by the policy. Sometimes I make unpopular decisions that I know won’t please everyone, but which I believe will bring the most benefit to the most people. I try to take responsibility rather than hiding behind pseudoscience.
And I want to finish by explaining the difference between science and pseudoscience. Science can only operate in meticulously controlled situations. One can apply science to study the motion of objects, or the biology of the platypus, but you can’t really apply it to your everyday life and relationships because you don’t have the right controls (positive and negative), you can’t reproduce experiments, and you can’t change one variable at a time. So, we don’t use science to decide questions like ‘Should I have kids?’
Similarly, it is usually a waste of time to apply too much science to project management and to map out every expected outcome, then celebrate as each “benefit” is delivered on time and on budget. This isn’t science, it’s theatre.
It’s difficult to know when to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. One should be rational, but blindly following formulae and the scientific method in realms where it is clearly not applicable is dumb. Hiding behind pseudoscience is unprofessional.
The best outcomes arise via a logical mindset, followed by consultation, and sense checking.
If we get this process right, we can still get to the right destination, but with much less damage to jobs, careers, and the economy than by adhering to outdated formulae.
Professor Merlin Crossley is Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic Quality) at UNSW
