As universities face financial pressures, staff cuts, and increased casualization, scrutiny is growing over the qualifications and experience of those in leadership.
While senior executives command high salaries and are entrusted with guiding multi-billion-dollar institutions, fundamental questions remain about whether they are truly equipped for their roles.
Academic staff are typically recruited based on their research expertise, yet they are then expected to teach, often without formal teaching qualifications. This lack of structured pedagogical training creates significant variability in student learning experiences and course quality. Should universities reconsider how they prepare academics for teaching, or rethink the job itself?
Similarly, many senior leaders in higher education, including Vice Chancellors (VCs) and Deputy Vice-Chancellors (DVCs), rise through the ranks based on research excellence rather than expertise in large-scale institutional management. Running a university requires overseeing vast budgets, extensive workforces, and complex governance structures. Yet, many of these leaders have no formal training in strategic management, finance, human resources or teaching.
The governance structures of universities are also under increasing scrutiny. While VCs’ salaries soar into the millions, frontline academic staff face precarious contracts and limited professional development opportunities. Proponents of high executive pay argue that competitive salaries attract the best talent, yet there is little evidence that this leads to better institutional outcomes for students or staff.
At the same time, the lack of scrutiny applied to executive leaders and other senior executives raises concerns. Are curriculum experts leading academic portfolios? Are DVCEs overseeing education portfolios with genuine expertise in higher education learning and teaching, strategy and funding? The answer is often no.
Nowhere is the qualifications gap more evident than in the sector’s response to artificial intelligence (AI). As AI reshapes teaching, research, and assessment, many academics lack even a basic understanding of its implications. Universities, which should be at the forefront of professional development, often fail to provide meaningful training in emerging technologies. Instead, a sink or swim approach prevails, leaving both staff and students underprepared.
The current system, in which qualifications and training gaps persist at all levels. From teaching academics to university executives, undermines theintegrity of higher education. If universities demand excellence in research and teaching from academic staff, they must apply the same rigorous standards to those who lead them. This requires a fundamental shift.
For instance, structured teaching qualifications for academics, leadership training tailored to university governance, and greater accountability in hiring decisions.
Universities are not corporations, and their leaders should not be chosen solely for their ability to attract funding or build a brand. Higher education leadership should be about upholding the mission of knowledge creation, student learning, and societal impact. The question is not just whether executive salaries are too high, but whether the right people are in these roles in the first place.
Professor Rachael Hains-Wesson is Associate Dean of Learning and Teaching in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies at RMIT University. She holds two PhDs and has dedicated her career to higher education research and leadership.
